Current Events > Why Ajit Pai's decision killing Obama's net neutrality FCC regulation is good

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-ajit-pais-decision-killing-obamas-net-neutrality-fcc-regulation-is-good/article/2641528

Sometimes you have to wonder how sincere people are when they gnash their teeth and pull out their hair over President Trump blocking or reversing an Obama-era regulation.

The latest cries of distress about anarchy and market apocalypse can be heard about an announcement by the Federal Communications Commission that it will roll back net neutrality.

Net neutralitys dubious value is made obvious by the misleading way Democrats and many news outlets reported the decision. F.C.C. plans net neutrality repeal in a victory for telecoms, wrote the New York Times. Missing from the headline or lede was that the decision was a loss for Netflix, Amazon, Google, and other corporate giants that provider content.

This is the Democratic line. By portraying deregulation as a bonbon for Big Business, and concealing the hit taken by some of the biggest businesses (see above), these partial accounts avoid debating the issue on its merits and dwindle into demagoguery, where they are comfortable. This is an established pattern with net neutrality. When the FCC voted in 2015 to impose net neutrality rules, the text of the relevant order wasnt published until after the vote.

So, lets look at the merits. Net neutrality is, generally, good in principle, for it lays down the law that the networks over which we get information should not discriminate between one type of information and another. For example, it would be wrong if AT&T prevented its Internet customers from searching for prices charged by other cellphone providers. You wouldnt want Comcast blocking access to articles complaining about its customer service.

But a general principle of that sort is often best not codified in a written regulation.

One reason is that the market will take care of wrongdoers. Comcast would lose Internet customers if, for example, it only allowed those customers to see MSNBC (Comcasts sister company) for news.

Net neutrality regulation also effectively outlaws competing business models, which are good for customers and the economy as a whole. Competing business models allow experimentation, and this leads to providers serving customers better by meeting their needs more precisely.

Consider the possibility of Internet fast lanes. As telemedicine becomes an increasingly important part of healthcare, wouldnt you want your surgeon to be able to buy access to an express lane in which a network was allowed to grant privilege to certain data over others? That is, AT&T should be allowed to provide a service in which data bytes flowing between an operating room and a surgeon take precedence over bytes of 100 dudes Googling to find out whether Jennifer Lawrence is married.

Maybe consumers will prefer neutrality. But guess what? If they do, many network providers will offer more neutral business models. Others will offer a tier-based model. Portugal has no net neutrality regulations, and mobile Internet providers mostly offer bundles, where you pay to have access to a bundle of online services.

Why is it better for the federal government rather than customers to decide how networks should handle data? It's perplexing that the option of government controlling data flow should be welcomed, especially at a time when so many people are freaking out of the admittedly silly fear that Trump is an anti-free-speech authoritarian.

The FCCs move last week will leave Internet business models to compete in the marketplace rather than competing in smoke-filled rooms for the favor of regulators. This deserves applause from everyone, except for those who love regulation as a good in itself.
---

That is about the dumbest shit I have read all day. The Market can't do shit in this situation since people can't go shopping for there ISPs like they do the do other things. why in the fuck does s/he think people stay with bad providers now.
---

cjsdowg posted...

That is about the dumbest shit I have read all day. The Market can't do shit in this situation since people can't go shopping for there ISPs like they do the do other things. why in the fuck does s/he think people stay with bad providers now.

Exactly
---

cjsdowg posted...

That is about the dumbest shit I have read all day. The Market can't do shit in this situation since people can't go shopping for there ISPs like they do the do other things. why in the fuck does s/he think people stay with bad providers now.

Yup. If there was a truly competitive market for internet service then some actual competition would occur, creating better options for Americans. But we've never had that, and never will, so Net Neutrality is vital for our protection.
---

But I thought Republicans are all about that small government thing.

Edit: I have a feeling I'm wrong about this sentence.
---

net neutrality is literally govt interference

getting rid of net neutrality is smaller govt
---

Philoktetes posted...

net neutrality is literally govt interference

getting rid of net neutrality is smaller govt

Citizens' will be damned, amirite?
---

Philoktetes posted...

net neutrality is literally govt interference

getting rid of net neutrality is smaller govt

Ah, I knew I was wrong somewhere lol.

So how exactly were things before NN?
---

Sometimes government interference isn't a bad thing, in this case it was a good thing. But hey if you want to pay three times as much to go to the same web sites you go to now, more power to you.
---

The Washington Examiner is basically the quality of an idiotic right wing blog.
---

lol I got modded for that

smh
---

Man pegusus, I blame you for getting modded
---

pegusus123456 posted...

lol I got modded for that

smh

dude it's the year 2016

homophobia isn't cool
---

jcmason posted...

cjsdowg posted...

That is about the dumbest shit I have read all day. The Market can't do shit in this situation since people can't go shopping for there ISPs like they do the do other things. why in the fuck does s/he think people stay with bad providers now.

Yup. If there was a truly competitive market for internet service then some actual competition would occur, creating better options for Americans. But we've never had that, and never will, so Net Neutrality is vital for our protection.

Even in a deregulated "competitive market" a monopoly will eventually form and regulate itself, lobbying and financial kickbacks ensure that this remains the new normal.
---

Somebody will start a new company that seems too good to be true. Itll get bought out with promises of maintaining its integrity, which will expire shortly thereafter.
---

Muh free market...

How the fuck is that supposed to work if there is only one isp available in an area.

The biggest nuisance will be other countries wanting to follow suit because "that's what the US does".

A more isolationist US might spare the world from some of their bullshit.
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

Philoktetes posted...

net neutrality is literally govt interference

getting rid of net neutrality is smaller govt

Citizens' will be damned, amirite?

Are the people who run/own the ISPs also not citizens? Why do they not have the right to run their business as they see fit?
---

It's amazing how people like TC need to perform mental gymnastics to conform to the conservative status quo, disregarding their so called core values, because Breitbart or Fox News told them that net neutrality is bad.

Imagine believing corporate puppets.

Or, imagine being a lame loser virgin who trolls on a dying video game message board.
---

"But, guys! If you just get rid of NN, we can give you better and cheaper internet!"
---

clearaflagrantj posted...

It's amazing how people like TC need to perform mental gymnastics to conform to the conservative status quo, disregarding their so called core values, because Breitbart or Fox News told them that net neutrality is bad.

TC is the most prolific and infamous troll on the entire GameFAQs, and if you think he ever posts anything serious on that account you're very mistaken.
---

Philoktetes posted...

Net neutralitys dubious value is made obvious by the misleading way Democrats and many news outlets reported the decision. F.C.C. plans net neutrality repeal in a victory for telecoms, wrote the New York Times. Missing from the headline or lede was that the decision was a loss for Netflix, Amazon, Google, and other corporate giants that provider content.

So, a net neutrality repeal hurts these "liberal companies" (that censor conservative viewpoints) therefore it's good? Is that what they're getting at here? It hurting these companies is a secondary concern. Pai and his cronies keep conflating these issues, i.e. those surrounding the internet infrastructure and those surrounding the companies that use it.

Even so, proponents of net neutrality have been clear that it would harm these large companies (remember ISPs throttling Netflix data and shaking them down for money?). The point, however, is that it would also harm smaller companies that don't have their deep pockets and influence, so it would still be a net gain for the larger companies.

Philoktetes posted...

So, lets look at the merits. Net neutrality is, generally, good in principle, for it lays down the law that the networks over which we get information should not discriminate between one type of information and another. For example, it would be wrong if AT&T prevented its Internet customers from searching for prices charged by other cellphone providers. You wouldnt want Comcast blocking access to articles complaining about its customer service.

And yet that's exactly what the net neutrality repeal will allow.

Philoktetes posted...

One reason is that the market will take care of wrongdoers. Comcast would lose Internet customers if, for example, it only allowed those customers to see MSNBC (Comcasts sister company) for news.

Except internet at decent speeds is massively important nowadays. If your only alternative is dial-up / slow internet, you're hardly going to switch. The "market" is more or less non-existent, in part due to anticompetitive business practices from ISPs (blocking access to telecom poles, blocking municipal broadband, etc.). Sort that shit out, then maybe you can start thinking about repealing net neutrality. If it's repealed now, ISPs will have no incentive to fix these issues and nothing will get done.

Philoktetes posted...

Consider the possibility of Internet fast lanes. As telemedicine becomes an increasingly important part of healthcare, wouldnt you want your surgeon to be able to buy access to an express lane in which a network was allowed to grant privilege to certain data over others? That is, AT&T should be allowed to provide a service in which data bytes flowing between an operating room and a surgeon take precedence over bytes of 100 dudes Googling to find out whether Jennifer Lawrence is married.

Or *gasp* they could offer different speeds for different prices without discriminating against certain data, something they already do

Philoktetes posted...

Why is it better for the federal government rather than customers to decide how networks should handle data? It's perplexing that the option of government controlling data flow should be welcomed, especially at a time when so many people are freaking out of the admittedly silly fear that Trump is an anti-free-speech authoritarian.

The point is that it's *not* controlled and data isn't discriminated against based on data type, application, IP address, etc.

The perplexing thing is thinking that controlling data in this way is bad then letting ISPs do just that, except at a higher level (i.e. the infrastructure level).

Also:

"by Washington Examiner"

Haha. Not telling us who wrote the article? I wonder why... *cough*Ajit Pai*cough*

Reminds me of when Pai pointed to one of his own articles as a reason to repeal NN.

I am totally confused how people who don't work for ISPs are in favor of killing Net Neutrality. There is no benefit for you whatsoever.
---

Iodine posted...

I am totally confused how people who don't work for ISPs are in favor of killing Net Neutrality. There is no benefit for you whatsoever.

Because it pisses off libruls and is removing government involvement so MUST be good. Doesn't matter ISPs already proven they will fuck consumers over and throttle traffic unless given money
---

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/att-and-comcast-win-lawsuit-they-filed-to-stall-google-fiber-in-nashville/

"competition"

Philoktetes posted...

One reason is that the market will take care of wrongdoers. Comcast would lose Internet customers if, for example, it only allowed those customers to see MSNBC (Comcasts sister company) for news.

Problem is a good amount of the population doesn't have options.
---

St0rmFury posted...

Philoktetes posted...

net neutrality is literally govt interference

getting rid of net neutrality is smaller govt

Ah, I knew I was wrong somewhere lol.

So how exactly were things before NN?

Before NN, this is what you had access to if you were an AOL customer:



If you weren't an AOL customer, you couldn't access anything in that area. Early early internet you could not e-mail customers on AOL if you were from a different service like Prodigy. That was later changed because people complained a lot and competition was a lot more common because all internet went over phone lines which everyone had and could be serviced by anyone in the country.
---

This is some good trolling, TC
---

One reason is that the market will take care of wrongdoers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M
---

Iodine posted...

I am totally confused how people who don't work for ISPs are in favor of killing Net Neutrality. There is no benefit for you whatsoever.

Did you even read the article?
---

that article is so wrong it hurts to read
---

God damn, "free market solves everything" people are some of the most delusional out there.
---

Kavatar posted...

God damn, "free market solves everything" people are some of the most delusional out there.

Suckling on the nipple of Ayn Rand a la Paul Ryan
---

Philoktetes posted...

One reason is that the market will take care of wrongdoers.

That's the thing.

It won't.

It won't, because they will all be doing the same thing. It's called collusion. It happens. Sorry.
---

"Why Ajit Pai's decision killing Obama's net neutrality FCC regulation is good"

LOL, FCC chairman Ajit Pai is nothing more than a Verizon lackey only looking out for the best interests of his corporate masters. Getting rid of net neutrality proves that the United States is nothing more than a corporate dystopia now.
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

cjsdowg posted...

That is about the dumbest shit I have read all day. The Market can't do shit in this situation since people can't go shopping for there ISPs like they do the do other things. why in the fuck does s/he think people stay with bad providers now.

Exactly

This. It's sad some people are brainwashed into thinking getting fucked over by cable companies is a good thing. How many people are happy with cable TV? No one? So why the fuck do you want those people making any decisions about your internet. Worst of all is the potential impact on small businesses which republicans always seem to have a hard-on for except in this case.
---

I don't care one way or another about NN. It doesn't affect me.
---

Since when do corporations regulate themselves? lol

Rexdragon125 posted...

Since when do corporations regulate themselves? lol

We know it doesn't work from the global economic collapse of 2008.

Oh and remember that when the people in the U.S. tried to rise up via the Occupy Movement the FBI crushed them?

Revealed: how the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy
---

Is it kinda messed up that part of me wants NN gone so we can see the nuclear rage this place is going to have over it?
---

In what alternate universe does repealing net neutrality make sense? Allowing for fast lanes on the internet will only give more power to the extravagantly wealthy who can afford those fast lanes. Don't the elites already have too much influence?
---

clearaflagrantj posted...

It's amazing how people like TC need to perform mental gymnastics to conform to the conservative status quo, disregarding their so called core values, because Breitbart or Fox News told them that net neutrality is bad.

This is something that puzzles me. What is the US definition of conservative? For me I'm socially conservative and lean more towards economically liberal. I'm curious what makes a person conservative in the US.
---

Hicks233 posted...

This is something that puzzles me. What is the US definition of conservative? For me I'm socially conservative and lean more towards economically liberal. I'm curious what makes a person conservative in the US.

Socially conservative in the US means:

No gay people allowed
No trans people allowed
No abortion allowed
Nothing anti-nationalist allowed
No public display of religion allowed except Christianity
No birth control allowed
No black people allowed
No speaking something other than English allowed

It's a bunch of people who want to use the government to control you and your life while claiming they're anti big-government.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Hicks233 posted...

This is something that puzzles me. What is the US definition of conservative? For me I'm socially conservative and lean more towards economically liberal. I'm curious what makes a person conservative in the US.

Socially conservative in the US means:

No gay people allowed
No trans people allowed
No abortion allowed
Nothing anti-nationalist allowed
No public display of religion allowed except Christianity
No birth control allowed
No black people allowed
No speaking something other than English allowed

It's a bunch of people who want to use the government to control you and your life while claiming they're anti big-government.

And how does that relate to net neutrality? What does a US conservative in favour of net neutrality want?
---

Not sure why trolls keep posting stupid stuff like this. They know this is going to affect them right? They are going to have to pay more to troll.
---

Hicks233 posted...

And how does that relate to net neutrality? What does a US conservative in favour of net neutrality want?

Conservative politicians are being bribed by big telecom industries to oppose net neutrality, so it's a money issue at this point. That's all.
---