NRA gives Ajit Pai the Courage Under Fire award for "saving the internet"

[Milkyjoe]

In what way was NN crap?

Also redundant fixed line infrastructure is plain stupid. Private companies extort their customers, prevent competition from gaining access and so on. There is a reason why the words "monopoly" and "duopoly" exist - it's because companies in these positions screw their customers because they control the market in those places.

Government in theory is ideally placed to build the infrastructure. Because of the right vs left wing philosophical differences, the left traditionally thought "yes the government should build the utility infrastructure" while the right thinks "the government can't do anything efficiently".

In Australia, the privatisation of our fixed line telecommunications network was an unmitigated disaster. The privatised company held consumers hostage with price gouging, obstructing access to competitors, failing to upgrade the internet services for over a decade. They upgraded their network to ADSL2+ and then withheld the upgraded services until a competitor build in any particular region then enabled their service upgrade there. They were called out on it.

So the reason I hate private fixed line with a passion is they (and the right wing politicians in our country) have set Australia back 15-20 years in competitiveness with the rest of the developed world. Our network is currently being "upgraded" to VDSL2 tech. Absolutely moronic. And taxpayer funded too.

If you pay the better part of $100 billion you expect value for money. I expect a network that has some future proofing.

Telstra should have been rolling out fibre a decade ago.

In the US NN basically allowed the big 4 to stay in complete control of the markets, just limited how they could conduct themselves, in some areas it stalled small providers from entering the market. It limited the monopolies but didn't come close to solving the underlying problem of lack of competition and certain companies having monopolies on markets. Our government was designed to be slow and inefficient to allow the people to watchdog what they were doing. They struggle with the tasks they have expanded themselves into in the 20th century. For them to take on important things would require a restructuring of how they even run, and would move to much power out of congress.
Australia, like the USA will always be behind other countries due to our size, massive countries, regardless of there development level have terrible internet. The only government involvement I would back is for them to forceably split the companies and force the remains to fight in the same areas for business.

Do you work for ajai pie? How can net neutrality keep the big four players in power? From wiki :
"Net neutrality is the principle that governments should mandate Internet service providers to treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[4] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content."

 

[Boilerhog146]

Do you work for ajai pie? How can net neutrality keep the big four players in power? From wiki :
"Net neutrality is the principle that governments should mandate Internet service providers to treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[4] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content."

would that include charging the same retarded amount of money for a DSL ,phone line connection @ a couple of meg down that one could get a fiberop line @30 meg down for in another community not too far away by same provider.?there's only a couple of provider to choose from here in Newfoundland ,they are thieves .in cahoots together, in the rural area where I moved to .is just sad what bell aliant can do, sell ya 7 meg and provide 2. and cry that "we can't push any more out that far," so you can take it or leave it.save a little with the bundle .by spending more...now have a home phone line that I don't use. but if I cancel it I get charged more for the internet, thieves...and they block or slowdown certain content at certain times of the day ,week .constantly resetting the junk router they provide, twice this morning already .

 

[GeforcerFX]

Do you work for ajai pie? How can net neutrality keep the big four players in power? From wiki :
"Net neutrality is the principle that governments should mandate Internet service providers to treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[4] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content."

NN limited what major ISP's could do, which was good, but it had no effect on what local governments do to the major ISP's and there smaller competitions, which is what stops the competition in rural areas. Major companies tend not to want to compete in small markets against the other big guy that's there, but people in that community do, NN did nothing to stop the local government from stopping those small startups.

 

[wiyosaya]

People seem to think that somehow, NN meant that the US govt could step in and control the content on the net. People that support that viewpoint commonly support the constitution, however, it seems that there is a lack of knowledge that such control would violate the first amendment to the constitution, and as such, any such government control would likely be easily overturned by any competent court in the US.

On the other hand, those who support the lack of government control all seem completely in favor of turning control over to monopolistic ISPs, and let's face it, in all but a few areas in the US, monopolistic ISPs are the rule.

From a 1st amendment standpoint, corporations are much less bound by the 1st amendment than the govt, and Pai's stance has just given monopolistic ISPs the opportunity to control content on the internet in a virtually unregulated way except that they have to post their policy on a publicly accessible site.

In a US where ISP competition actually exists, and remember that in most areas of the US, it does not, Pai's stance might work - except that to get the content we are used to today, one might have to have multiple ISPs since one ISP could conceivably not carry content that the other might.

I do not see how Pai's internet equates to a better internet. Pai is a lawyer likely with little technical knowledge. He does what he is told by those who hire him, ostensibly, if it is consistent with law. Those who have hired him, IMO, are only interested in maintaining their monopolies.

Like anyone in the hard-core NRA even knows what the Internet is...

I'd be willing to bet ,the hardcore in the NRA,are much like the Hardcore in the Hells Angels , Lawyers ,Company execs, Politicians . that image you view is old..
they Know what the internet is and how to use it..

More like how to abuse it for their own ends...

 

[wiyosaya]

Do you work for ajai pie? How can net neutrality keep the big four players in power? From wiki :
"Net neutrality is the principle that governments should mandate Internet service providers to treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[4] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content."

would that include charging the same retarded amount of money for a DSL ,phone line connection @ a couple of meg down that one could get a fiberop line @30 meg down for in another community not too far away by same provider.?there's only a couple of provider to choose from here in Newfoundland ,they are thieves .in cahoots together, in the rural area where I moved to .is just sad what bell aliant can do, sell ya 7 meg and provide 2. and cry that "we can't push any more out that far," so you can take it or leave it.save a little with the bundle .by spending more...now have a home phone line that I don't use. but if I cancel it I get charged more for the internet, thieves...and they block or slowdown certain content at certain times of the day ,week .constantly resetting the junk router they provide, twice this morning already .

The internet, in the US, is not much different. Most areas have a monopolistic ISP that gives crap service and is not interested in anything other than sucking money out of their customers. Pai has basically told them that it is OK for them to continue to do so, and, in fact, that it is OK for them to do so in any means that they see fit as long as they post the means on their web site.

 

[wiyosaya]

NN limited what major ISP's could do, which was good, but it had no effect on what local governments do to the major ISP's and there smaller competitions, which is what stops the competition in rural areas. Major companies tend not to want to compete in small markets against the other big guy that's there, but people in that community do, NN did nothing to stop the local government from stopping those small startups.

In my area, those small startups are being encouraged by local and state governments. At least one small startup provider is laying fiber alongside the lines of the major, monopolistic, cable ISP. It is the political wind that is behind the variances between local/state governments, more so, those who elect the political windbags into office - like where was that, Tennessee that decided that even though there was already a network in place that was inexpensive and paid for by taxpayers, they would allow that network to be trounced by corporate interests.

 

[GeforcerFX]

In my area, those small startups are being encouraged by local and state governments. At least one small startup provider is laying fiber alongside the lines of the major, monopolistic, cable ISP. It is the political wind that is behind the variances between local/state governments, more so, those who elect the political windbags into office - like where was that, Tennessee that decided that even though there was already a network in place that was inexpensive and paid for by taxpayers, they would allow that network to be trounced by corporate interests.

I would have preferred they stopped it from being up to the local gov to stop it, there is always some place that's doing it right at least. The beauty of local smaller gov being the people that live there have far more control then at the fed level. I don't mind government intervention, but if they are going to intervene I would prefer it be the FTC suing on behalf of the gov and judge deciding over the FCC. I would prefer if they intervene they break up the big 4 and force there split companies to compete in the same areas, factor in cell company growth, advances in satellite internet and you would have some massive competition across the US.

 

[wiyosaya]

I would have preferred they stopped it from being up to the local gov to stop it, there is always some place that's doing it right at least. The beauty of local smaller gov being the people that live there have far more control then at the fed level. I don't mind government intervention, but if they are going to intervene I would prefer it be the FTC suing on behalf of the gov and judge deciding over the FCC. I would prefer if they intervene they break up the big 4 and force there split companies to compete in the same areas, factor in cell company growth, advances in satellite internet and you would have some massive competition across the US.

Cell company growth - with data caps, satellite Internet presently junk due to latency, how would these change anything? We have them now, they provide no competition to any established internet provider. NN did not prevent any of these services from providing internet to anyone. There was nothing in NN that said that these services could not provide ISP services.

So now you want this new model where the ISPs claim that it will give them more income so that they can enhance their networks because before, NN cost them so much that they could not make a profit?

All the ISPs are interested in doing is finding ways that they can spin their current capabilities to gouge their customers for more money.

NN was to prevent the providers from discriminating against users and content providers by filtering content. It had nothing at all to do with the government filtering/throttling content for more money; however, it appears that when anyone mentions government, it rouses the fears of "authority" of anyone who claims that the government is totally evil. I really do not get how the government saying you cannot discriminate turns into we are in control of your internet, we control its horizontal, we control its vertical, you cannot adjust your internet.

After getting serious crap from our local ISP including them slamming my elderly mother onto their phone service, blaming my network for their e-mail problems when they had an open service ticket on their end, and then when complaining about their crap service, literally having their CS rep ask me if I want to buy more of their crap service, by far, I trust the government more than I trust any monopolistic ISP that is only interested in lining their pockets with my money by exploiting their monopoly. We will see where this goes, but this is the internet Pai has ensured we will get.

 

[GeforcerFX]

Cell company growth - with data caps, satellite Internet presently junk due to latency, how would these change anything? We have them now, they provide no competition to any established internet provider. NN did not prevent any of these services from providing internet to anyone. There was nothing in NN that said that these services could not provide ISP services.

So now you want this new model where the ISPs claim that it will give them more income so that they can enhance their networks because before, NN cost them so much that they could not make a profit?

All the ISPs are interested in doing is finding ways that they can spin their current capabilities to gouge their customers for more money.

NN was to prevent the providers from discriminating against users and content providers by filtering content. It had nothing at all to do with the government filtering/throttling content for more money; however, it appears that when anyone mentions government, it rouses the fears of "authority" of anyone who claims that the government is totally evil. I really do not get how the government saying you cannot discriminate turns into we are in control of your internet, we control its horizontal, we control its vertical, you cannot adjust your internet.

After getting serious crap from our local ISP including them slamming my elderly mother onto their phone service, blaming my network for their e-mail problems when they had an open service ticket on their end, and then when complaining about their crap service, literally having their CS rep ask me if I want to buy more of their crap service, by far, I trust the government more than I trust any monopolistic ISP that is only interested in lining their pockets with my money by exploiting their monopoly. We will see where this goes, but this is the internet Pai has ensured we will get.

I don't have a data cap on my cell limit, the people I know using it aren't having any issues. Look at what cell plans were 2 years ago and compare them to know, there is good competition in the mobile market, they are always improving compared to landline. Believe it or not (having used Hughes Net gen 5 regulatory) for normal internet usage the latency is not noticeable, sucks for gaming, but for everyday usage, especially for rural customers it's far faster than anything landlines deliver to them that far out of town. Sorry you have had bad experiences with your ISP, I have had good luck with Charter, no complaints. I don't trust either the government or major companies, companies can get easily scared by bad publicity, mass customer shifts, stock drops, the government doesn't get that effect. I would rather have companies try to do what they want, if they cross the line, mass up work with the FTC and take them to court, FTC has shown no problem pulling these companies into lawsuits. I've seen the trend to be it's a lot easier to get a company to backtrack then it is to get the government to, while NN wasn't a huge power swing, it didn't solve the issue, so why fight for it? Fight for a actual solutions to crappy monopolistic ISPs with crap choice and terrible cost/performance.

 

[Evernessince]

I know everyone hates him... and hates the NRA even more. But the NRA is right. He has stood up under pressure - pretty much every news outlet trashes him and his family is harassed by the news and protesters alike.

As much as most disagree with him , it's admirable to see someone work so hard for something he believes in especially when getting what he wants will result in his organization (the govt) having less power.

You're right. We should go give an award to hitler and charles manson for working so hard to achieve their goals.

 

[wiyosaya]

I would rather have companies try to do what they want, if they cross the line, mass up work with the FTC and take them to court, FTC has shown no problem pulling these companies into lawsuits. I've seen the trend to be it's a lot easier to get a company to backtrack then it is to get the government to, while NN wasn't a huge power swing, it didn't solve the issue, so why fight for it? Fight for a actual solutions to crappy monopolistic ISPs with crap choice and terrible cost/performance.

Here's the thing, though. As long as the ISP posts their policy on a public web site, they can do ANYTHING they want. They can throttle or refuse any traffic they want. This is written in Pai's new rules. The FTC will have NO POWER AT ALL over this. The ONLY WAY the FTC will have ANY power over this is if the ISP does not post its policy publicly.

If you know differently, please cite the relevant section(s) of Pai's new ruling. Otherwise, I think you have gotten the wrong impression of exactly what Pai's ruling states. Pai's rules regarding the internet are pure corporate welfare, nothing more!

 

[wiyosaya]

I don't have a data cap on my cell limit

No data cap, as most don't but I bet you have a threshold that if hit, your speed is throttled - especially if you are in the US. This makes using any cellular service for an ISP for a home, useless, at least as I see it. If you don't have the threshold, then I have to ask who is your provider?

I've kept tabs on cellular service as I would consider using it to drop my ISP for my home internet service, but the last I checked, no one has unlimited data that is not throttled after a data threshold, and at the throttled speeds, it is not much better than ISDN was.

 

[Boilerhog146]

No data cap, as most don't but I bet you have a threshold that if hit, your speed is throttled - especially if you are in the US. This makes using any cellular service for an ISP for a home, useless, at least as I see it. If you don't have the threshold, then I have to ask who is your provider?

I've kept tabs on cellular service as I would consider using it to drop my ISP for my home internet service, but the last I checked, no one has unlimited data that is not throttled after a data threshold, and at the throttled speeds, it is not much better than ISDN was.

I tried that at my acreage, set the phone up as a wifi hotspot, logged in with the laptop,laggy as you can only imagine, and used up my 2 gig of BW in like no time according to my bill that month .oh they let me go over ,but 5 cents a meg over ,it get retarded .

 

[Evernessince]

I tried that at my acreage, set the phone up as a wifi hotspot, logged in with the laptop,laggy as you can only imagine, and used up my 2 gig of BW in like no time according to my bill that month .oh they let me go over ,but 5 cents a meg over ,it get retarded .

Wow, 5 cents a megabyte? That translates to 5,120 cents a GB or $51.2 dollars. That's just insane, especially if you consider it probably costs them next to nothing to serve you that data.

 

[Boilerhog146]

Wow, 5 cents a megabyte? That translates to 5,120 cents a GB or $51.2 dollars. That's just insane, especially if you consider it probably costs them next to nothing to serve you that data.

that's what a monopolistic ISP can do,I have 2 choices for ISP where I live the phone line ,cell phone which is Bell Aliant, or Shaw with satellite which ,as I hear is no faster or cheaper ,at the acreage ,there is only the cell or satellite,no infrastructure there only dirt road .
in the capital there is also Rogers ,the cable guy and I had that when I lived in their range and they restrict downloads and content,,there should be laws ,preventing what goes on here,
we have 1 choice for power ,Newfoundland Power.or you can generate your own ,which is almost as cheap,I have a 250 + powerbill every month with one Gpu pc running, in a small 2 bedroom house.run a second pc and it goes to 350+. which is why I wouldn't even try to set up to mine ,my buddy did that .it cost him money,,

 

[wiyosaya]

Wow, 5 cents a megabyte? That translates to 5,120 cents a GB or $51.2 dollars. That's just insane, especially if you consider it probably costs them next to nothing to serve you that data.

The telecom industry is expert at spinning existing hard/soft capabilities as something that costs them significant amounts of money to serve to their customers and thus justifies the additional expense they choose to charge for it.

 

[Evernessince]

The telecom industry is expert at spinning existing hard/soft capabilities as something that costs them significant amounts of money to serve to their customers and thus justifies the additional expense they choose to charge for it.

Yep, like the whole "Internet is like water and we should be charge by how much we use" argument. This only really work with people who aren't technically inclined.

that's what a monopolistic ISP can do,I have 2 choices for ISP where I live the phone line ,cell phone which is Bell Aliant, or Shaw with satellite which ,as I hear is no faster or cheaper ,at the acreage ,there is only the cell or satellite,no infrastructure there only dirt road .
in the capital there is also Rogers ,the cable guy and I had that when I lived in their range and they restrict downloads and content,,there should be laws ,preventing what goes on here,
we have 1 choice for power ,Newfoundland Power.or you can generate your own ,which is almost as cheap,I have a 250 + powerbill every month with one Gpu pc running, in a small 2 bedroom house.run a second pc and it goes to 350+. which is why I wouldn't even try to set up to mine ,my buddy did that .it cost him money,,

I'm personally in favor of the people (either the government, province, state, ect) owning the infrastructure and ISPs paying for use of it to provide their service. That way any business that wants to compete can and it would also prevent these companies from overcharging. They would no longer be able to charge per GB if it's the people's network it's going over. The only thing ISPs would be doing is hooking you up to that network. They did this in many European countries and they have 1GB internet speeds with no caps for $15/month.

 

[wiyosaya]

I'm personally in favor of the people (either the government, province, state, ect) owning the infrastructure and ISPs paying for use of it to provide their service. That way any business that wants to compete can and it would also prevent these companies from overcharging. They would no longer be able to charge per GB if it's the people's network it's going over. The only thing ISPs would be doing is hooking you up to that network. They did this in many European countries and they have 1GB internet speeds with no caps for $15/month.

There is a fiber network in my area paid for by taxpayer dollars and 80-percent dark. One of the parts of the loop is just down the street from me. Right now, it carries first responder traffic. The last I heard, they are researching the possibility of doing exactly what you state above. AFAIK, the results should be available later this year. I am keeping my fingers crossed!