Petition for the Resignation of FCC Chairman Ajit Varadaraj Pai

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Nov 28, 2017.

  1. Master_shake_

    Master_shake_ [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,437
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    actually.

    its funny how fast people forget the 90's

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ports-utility-rules-and-open-access-networks/

    the fuckery lasted 7-11 years not decades.
     
    JokerCPoC likes this.
  2. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,479
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    I'm trying to think back to how long ago it was, that a ruling on net neutrality would have had any impact at all.

    I know I bought my home after I retired in March of 2000 and I still only had dial up. And I think all the net neutrality protections in the world wouldn't have meant shit at that time. I'd say it was maybe in 2003 that cable internet was available. But there wasn't any streaming content or internet services like that back then. In fact "In 2007, Netflix expanded its business with the introduction of streaming media, ........."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix

    Streaming didn't really get going until Netflix started streaming in 2007.

    Cell Phones weren't really capable of watching streaming content until when? Wasn't it 3G that made streaming content possible, (not HD streaming but you could stream lesser quality video with 3G if I remember right).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G

    So what I am driving at is a 25 year claim is just a bit on the outside of realistic in my book because the best net neutrality rules possible wouldn't have even been noticed until somewhere around 2002 and frankly, I think it wouldn't have had a real impact until latter on because when there isn't any competition .......................
    Cox Communications began offering "On Demand" in 2007. So if Net neutrality was going to have an impact for me, and if Cox was going to throttle it's competition, the earliest it could have started was 2007.

    So others' millage may vary for the exact year, but I'm calling it 2007 so you get 11 years for most of Arizona, not 25 years.
     
  3. aaronspink

    aaronspink [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,610
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    You obviously don't understand how the FCC works. And no, they are not all Obama appointments. And technically, Ajit is a Trump appointment. For those that are blatantly uninformed, the FCC cannot have more than 3 appointments from the same party and by convention, the opposition leader of the Senate makes the recommendations/appointments for their respective party. Obama's "appointments" were the two democrats on the committee and Wheeler while McConnell's appointments were Ajit and one of the other republicans on the committee. Trump then reappointed Ajit along with another republican.

    The Congress literally gave the FCC the mission to regulate communications. The FCC has always had authority over the internet, there is no legal question about that as it is part of case law.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2017
    wolfofone and JokerCPoC like this.
  4. Well you guys do things a little slower than us east coasters apparently.

    DSL at the time was considered broadband and was available in 1990. I know because I saw the forerunner of teleconferencing in 1990 using DSL lines.

    However the first Comcast broadband became available in the DC area around 1995 as a pilot program and expanded to surrounding rural areas in 1997. For a long time there were two connections to every house. One analog, one digital as they transitioned. So at the very least you have 20 years. In that time the only thing I've seen comcast do is sign exclusivity agreements with local governments, as well as buy up their smaller competition.

    Yet the history is already ripe with abuses by ISPs.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 29, 2017
  5. Wierdo

    Wierdo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,776
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Well well, looks like Comcast's already scrapping its so called "pledge" to the consumer:
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ity-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/

    [​IMG]
    No surprises there, time to milk the consumers and hobble the online media competition, especially in places with less choices like the rust belt.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2017
    tetris42 and JokerCPoC like this.
  6. JokerCPoC

    JokerCPoC Gawd

    Messages:
    629
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Signed, though short of 2020, ajit pai would have to make trump look very, very bad, to get Him to resign or be fired, until then, ol thinskin's puppet won't do a thing like resigning, so why sign?

    To apply pressure, and to help embarrass trump...
     
  7. Unoid

    Unoid [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,049
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    If you want change for NN concepts. you need to lobby your congressmen and senators to pass real legislation. Not executive branch agency regulation. That way a bill would have to be overturned which is harder to do.
     
    lcpiper, dr.stevil and JokerCPoC like this.
  8. JokerCPoC

    JokerCPoC Gawd

    Messages:
    629
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Taking over the House(24 needed), and possibly the Senate in 2018 would help(3 needed), but if a new law were passed that trump does not like or want, He could Veto it, and in the Senate or the House one needs a 2/3rd vote to override a veto, in the Senate that would fail, as would removing the puss bag in the Executive Mansion, since a Senate trial would need 67 Senators min to convict and remove. Impeachment w/a Democratic House Majority would be easy, it's the Senate that would be hard, if not impossible.
     
  9. Fix Me

    Fix Me Gawd

    Messages:
    639
    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    Has the White House responded to any of these petitions that have over 100,000 signatures since Trump became President? I'm kind of assuming whomever responded to them is long gone and hasn't been replaced.

    The blog where there would have been updates only shows the Obama archives. I think the WH petitions are dead. There are a lot of other 100k signature petitions there that are older that haven't been and will never be addressed.
     
  10. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    ISPs used to be a dime a dozen back in the modem era with tons of competition between them. That's only back in the 90s. In the modem era there was almost no barriers for entry.

    I still don't think the barriers to entry are all that large. You probably can't reuse other company's infrastructure, but it's possible for some municipalities to start their own ISPs and local governments aren't known for their smarts or efficiency, but they're still able to do it when their needs aren't being met. If they can do it, then it shouldn't be that hard if you have a reason and a lot of initial capital to get started.

    Back to the topic at hand and my own opinion on the matter: NN tries to solve a problem without getting to the root of the issue. The problem is the lack of competition. There are multiple reasons for this. Instead of trying to foster competition (like allowing utility poles or existing communication trunks to be shared and or eliminating exclusive contracts as well as punishing collusion for not competing), it tries to regulate ISPs like utilities without the standard non-profit motives like energy companies usually have as well as imposing a very big monitoring program on top of them (to make sure they're not throttling (lel), but more likely to make it easier to monitor all packets).

    My stance is that ISPs should only be in the business of trying to sell internet access and nothing else. You wouldn't want to see your energy company getting into the car market and giving rebates only on teslas, would you? Then why would you want to see ISPs getting into the movie business and promoting their own services instead of netflix? Because that's exactly what's been going on.
     
    dr.stevil likes this.
  11. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,479
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    Wait up now,. I have no problem with a different timeline on the broadband "pipe" and it's availability. But you are ignoring the content part of the equation. What good is a fast lane if there isn't any content being "discriminated against"?

    What was an ISP going to "throttle" in 1990? A Quake server? And in favor of what?
     
  12. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,479
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    What is going to help is is this congress passing a new Net Neutrality law that specifies what falls under the FCC's control and what falls under the FTC to control, and specifies some basic principles for guidance that both must follow. Furthermore they need to avoid wording that the courts have already thrown down so that alone provides a left and right boundary for Congress to follow.
     
  13. Ranulfo

    Ranulfo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,420
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Who gave the ISP's/Cable companies/phone companies monopolies they currently enjoy?

    Those local governments did, to get someone to build the networks in the first place.
     
  14. Nukester

    Nukester [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,429
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2016
    He's a blow hard, just like every president before him. I still like him for his lack of PC. Yeah, I roll my eyes, but it is interesting and entertaining. Better than Oblamy.
     
  15. Guarana [BAWLS]

    Guarana [BAWLS] [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,765
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
  16. wolfofone

    wolfofone Gawd

    Messages:
    722
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    I think after reaching 100,000 signatures it is supposed to get a response / statement from the White House.
     
  17. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Previous petitions typically got BS responses. One can only assume with Trump in office that the responses will be even shorter.
    Fire the FCC guy!
    No.
     
  18. Discrimination didn't occur till later. Most of it is related to throttling services that affect their bottom line.

    But their anti competitive behavior has been consistent since the 90's: Buy up the smaller competing ISP's. Sign exclusivity agreements with local governments, suing governments that tried to install their own service infrastructure.

    They are basically a monopoly.
     
  19. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    But every business works that way. When you can't compete, you just buy out the competition and burn it into the ground. It's worked for construction companies, to airlines, to banks, to just about everything. Applying that to ISPs doesn't make them any different.
    Signing exclusive contracts with local governments should be illegal. They should fine those companies and jail the local politicians which signed off on it. Local governments should be allowed to counter sue ISPs in those lawsuits if the entire point was to try and delay or eliminate competition through a lawsuit.
     
  20. __hollywood|meow

    __hollywood|meow [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,489
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    youre missing the point. in the 90s regulations initially allowed tons of different smaller ISPs to share infrastructure which kept prices fair with tons of competition for internet service. when broadband developed beyond DSL/T1, the ISPs that laid down the cable owned the infrastructure & did not share, & the regulations didnt keep up with the new technology...which has now, many years later, lead to regional monopolies & evolved into ISPs doing insane things like throttling traffic from competing internet-based services in order for their proprietary or sponsored service to run unfettered (thereby looking better by comparison to every end user)

    its not about the bandwidth at all. its about the established empirical fact that when left to their own devices, ISPs try to screw us. title II classification is the only legal framework that even remotely covers our modern internet analogous to the internets early development & the competitive environment thereof. people who are against net neutrality want to fall back to a less encompassing & irrelevant set of regulatory laws that would only enforce the vague concept of our data & bandwidth as "information". it is not just information anymore. this isnt telnet in the 80s. we arent on a newsgroup sending emails to each other. our bandwidth is clearly integrated into everyones life as a service & needs to be regulated as such OR TWC/CHARTER, AT&T, et al are going to fuck us in the ass.

    i say we need to go one step further & go back to the 90s forced infrastructure sharing as well, but lobbying ISPs will make that quite difficult wont they. i understand conservative outcry [hi side note im not a liberal] at this concept: "they paid to bury the cable! its their private property! muh free market!" my answer is quite simple: they are now by legal definition running a utility service & have neglected infrastructure, colluded to suppress competition abusing a framework of antiquated inapplicable laws, & repeatedly interfered with the service they are providing. they dont deserve compensation - they deserve direct oversight. you know why? because its the fucking FCCs literal job to make sure they arent doing exactly wat theyve been doing for over a decade now.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2017
  21. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,479
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Hmm, I live here;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Vista,_Arizona

    We have a population of less than 44,000 and shrinking.

    These are our choices, though as a gamer I wouldn't consider very many of them for myself.

    Century Link for DSL

    Cox Cable for Cable

    HughsNet which is Satellite

    I'm not seeing a monopoly here.

    As I am sure you know, monopolies are not illegal in the US. Nor are monopolies always a bad thing. Sometimes monopolies exist because a company is simply clearly superior in it's services and prices. The trick is that they can't violate anti-trust laws or behave in an anti-competitive manor.

    Now my work mate here says throttling exists now this very day and always has existed. He points to the different internet packages and tells me that they represent throttling. I'm not sold on his definition yet. But he claims that they are proof that throttling existed before net neutrality and have existed throughout net neutrality.,
     
  22. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,479
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    I'm not so sure that the intent was that they were trying to prevent the municipalities from extablishing service as it was that the they didn't think it was right to lay out all that cable and set up the infrastructure and then be forced to allow the city to piggy back on it for peanuts. I have to spend the money to lay out the cable and switches and make it all work and continue to manage it, and now you want to not only force me to let you use it, but your going to take away my customers too?
     
  23. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,479
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Ummm, no, no I think you miss the point. I think this arguement you propose is bullshit and I see no facts to back it up despite your claim of empiricalness.

    I used to pay $50 a month for really crappy dial-up service. What was I actually buying? The right to use my own modem to dial in and connect to a backbone, and it cost me $50 a month. But I paid it because to me it was worth it. My little modem talking over the telephone line, which I had to have a second line for so we could still use the house phone.

    Today, I spend $80 a month and I have cable service that has for the most part, been terrific and that's if I forget how bad the old days were. It costs almost nothing more when you factor in that extra line I was paying for and it's worlds better. So I don't see where I have been getting the shaft here. If someone wants to come compete with Cox Cable they are welcome. But I don't think the Feds have any right at all to force Cox to allow other ISPs to use their infrastructure while they are taking away Cox customers. If they want to compete they can damn well invest in their own infrastructure and do it better and cheaper and win some business all on their own.

    Now we actually have several problems going on here all at once. Take Net Neutrality for instance. I challenge you to prove that the FCC's Title II classification action and their Internet regulatory efforts in any way actually provided what you think Net Neutrality actually is. Because it doesn't, didn't, and never would have. Moreover, the courts struck down every attempt the FCC made to make it so. What the FCC tried to do, failed to happen, empirically.

    Now you might think I am against Net Neutrality, or against what you think Net Neutrality means. I assure you that those important issues like internet fast lanes, etc, that at a basic level I agree with you. As far as fair practices go, I am all for them. But I am not going to back you by going about things the wrong way. If what the FCC was trying to do was right, the courts wouldn't have shot them down three times in a row. The FCC was trying to establish regulatory oversight not granted to them by the law and that is as simple as anyone can put it.

    Do you want the DoD to decide that they need to regulate the education system because they think the DoE is doing a shitty job of it? "For the defense of our nation, we must reclassify public education system and establish military control so that students graduate with the skills that allow for a successful transition to military service." I think the courts would have something to say about that don't you?

    And if you think it's the FCC's job to regulate fair commerce and protect the consumer, you need to go back and retake a High School Government class. You also need to understand exactly what communications is and what the FCC's role in regulating communications is supposed to be, and it does not include what you think it does. Which is again, why the courts struck down every attempt the FCC made to regulate ISP business practices. You have been listening to the wrong people and the wrong arguments.

    I think you should do as I have previously suggested and go to the FTC's site and look at exactly what the FTC does do and consider that once the FCC's bullshit is cleared up the FTC will again be able to do more regarding ISPs and other online Service providers.
     
  24. __hollywood|meow

    __hollywood|meow [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,489
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    yeah im not going to respond to that. i can assure you im quite well versed in a grounded & detailed legal understanding both of title II classification & how it relates to products vs services, & the FCCs jurisdiction thereof as well. im not some schmuck off the street whos been getting information from a talking head or social media. no part of my response to you was supposed to be confrontational, i was instigating a simple factual conversation based on the actual statutes. i see thats not important to you. thats fine.

    thats textbook monopoly. DSL over phone line is not relevant or competitive to anyone in the past 10yrs. one cable provider. one. let me be more succinct than my previous post: when we were all on DSL, title II regulations applied to our phone lines & therefore our internet connection. the infrastructure was shared & a half dozen companies in any given area used the copper phone line to every home to offer competitive services.

    cable comes along & builds its own infrastructure. the law hasnt caught up to technology. their infrastructure network is classified legally as the passage of information, not as a utility-based service. they slowly realize they can abuse this, & begin doing so.

    sometimes regional monopolies exist because conglomerates muscle out small ISPs, buy them out, & enter in collusive agreements with larger competing ISPs to "stick to their own turf" like the fucking mafia.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2017
  25. DSL no longer qualifies as broadband
    Satellite has a horrible up link that disqualifies it from broadband (1 mbps minimum up)

    But the VAST majority of the country only has 1 provider.
     
  26. That isn't what happened at all.

    https://maxfibre.net/news/comcast-treats-city-to-fiber-after-suing-it-for-installing-fiber

    https://arstechnica.com/information...ed-by-city-fighting-anti-muni-broadband-laws/

    (Same case)
    And this is just one instance. I know of 5 municipalities that tried to lay their own line, many without broadband at all.

    And here's a case where big providers intentionally stalling access to poles so competition can install their own lines

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/1...s-nullified-a-citys-broadband-competition-law

    And you don't think that's abusive or anti competitive? And you expect these same companies to behave and foster competition? Seriously?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 29, 2017
  27. leezard

    leezard [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,446
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Regardless of what good, if any a petition will do. I want some of what the people that think the providers or the FCC have our best interests in mind are smoking.
     
  28. os2wiz

    os2wiz Gawd

    Messages:
    514
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    I agree it is almost like asking for capitalists to not be capitalists. If you are serious you don't ASK them for anything , you DEMAND and organize to overthrow their system.
     
  29. dbr1

    dbr1 [H]Lite

    Messages:
    88
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
  30. SecretStash

    SecretStash Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    490
    Joined:
    May 27, 2017
    Maybe Mr. Pai is just trying to do the right thing because the FCC was overstepping it's bounds ... oh wait, the FCC is now stepping on State rights now. Wait a minute...
     
  31. aaronspink

    aaronspink [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,610
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    No, your comment is so incorrect to be a purposeful characterization. Municipalities weren't using or planing to use ISP cables, they were planning to put in a new network. The ISPs literally didn't want the competition.
     
  32. Meeho

    Meeho [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,273
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    No matter where one stands on this issue, this is such a travesty of an article filled with non sequiturs that I wouldn't even know where to begin. I am honestly stunned at how bad it is.
     
  33. Pongo

    Pongo n00b

    Messages:
    15
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2012
    We got Dark souls ported to PC :D https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012...-to-pc-protest-use-of-games-for-windows-live/

    "In an event announcing the PC port version in Las Vegas today, From Software director Hidetaka Miyazaki reportedly thanked the game's fans for pressuring Namco Bandai into the PC port through an online petition that has drawn over 90,000 signatures since early January"
     
  34. RayderR6

    RayderR6 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    295
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    lol, this just might be the cynical tin foil hate wearer in me, but I think this list of 100,000+ people are going to go straight to the ISP's so they know who is going to get their shit throttled after the ISP's gain total control of your data traffic stream :)
     
  35. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,479
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    Well, I did feel your statement was confrontational with your "empirical facts". I'll try to tone it down as I respond to your statement that wasn't a response to ... my ... quoted ... comments :cautious:

    I see the quality of the service I receive, and balance it against costs, and have no problem with it. I do not feel that I am being taken advantage of by Cox Communications in my area. Your belief that DSL isn't a worthwhile internet service and doesn't qualify as an alternative to cable is frankly, ridiculous. I know people who don't even use the internet for anything, not even email and they are not suffering in their lives, they just don't need it at all.

    I suppose that your views are heavily influenced by your own life and that you live in a more populated part of the country. Is your life grounded in the cities and universities where the internet is an embedded part of your life? You sound like you do.

    Perhaps you see it as an absolute necessity, that work can't happen without it, and that quality of life would be severely impacted if one can't stream Netflix. Is this so? Do you believe that one can't possible manage interacting with the world without a connection faster than DSL?

    There are all kinds of studies and surveys that show how much of the country doesn't have access to broadband greater than DSL speeds allow. But very few that address how many people couldn't care less and don't feel deprived by the lack of access to broadband. See, for people who live in underpopulated areas of the country, the internet is just representative of what they moved out to get away from. I'm not saying that they wouldn't like to have decent cell phone coverage so that they can call home now and then or that they don't enjoy watching the game on Monday night or the race on Sunday. But they aren't the ones who are going to be taking a picture of McDonalds for Google, as they drive into town to do their banking and buy some feed and do their grocery shopping.

    The kind of people I am talking about are virtually invisible to the online world. They aren't going to be hanging out at [H] or answering surveys online. They aren't going to be available to you to make their case.

    Now you might also imagine that this is such a small amount of the population, that in the big picture, they don't count. But then again, you were probably completely surprised that Donald Trump is our elected President.

    There is a large part of this country that is virtually invisible to people like us. But they count just like we do, and they vote just like we do.
     
  36. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,479
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    I understand this fully, but if you take a look at my previous post to the guy who quoted me, but wasn't responding to me ...... you'll see how I address these same points.
     
  37. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,479
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    I hadn't realized that you were talking about Chattanooga and events like it. I was thinking of Pennsylvania and those events that concerned the promises of Fiber speeds, etc.
     
  38. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,479
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    You are free to try, but you're going to find out that there are just as many people who have a different perspective on things.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2017
  39. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,479
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Post #116, DigitalGriffin said the same thing, I responded to him a couple of posts up.
     
  40. DCookSta

    DCookSta [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,049
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    110,406 signed out of 100,00 goal.