This is a video that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai put out yesterday before the agency voted today to remove net neutrality rules. I don’t know what his intent was, but it seems to me he’s ridiculing those who’ve been fighting to save net neutrality. He’s smug, sarcastic, and decidely not funny. I watched part of the hearing and he seemed a reasonable man. That impression lasted only until I saw the video. Now I can understand what might have provoked the bomb threat that caused a 15-minute recess. Pai threw oil on an already very hot issue.
The vote, by the way, was 3-2 along strict party lines. Congress could reverse the decision with a “Resolution of Disapproval,” and has 60 days to do so. It’s not likely to happen since Trump has to approve it, but there is still a tiny ray of hope.
Battleforthenet.com provides an easy way to write to Congress, and also tells you who to call in your state.
(Video gone again? Try the Chicago Tribune or the New York Times.)
insane
Ya think?
As I understand it, the driving concept behind dumping net neutrality is that it would increase competition among ISP’s by making their businesses more profitable. The reality is that it will do exactly the opposite through mega-mergers. That’s already happening. A good example is the airline industry which now treats customers like sardines.
Who needs mergers? In the many areas with only one ISP, there is no competition. All the ISP has to do is start raising rates, selling favors to those who can pay, etc.
Time will tell. I’m not convinced that either argument isn’t motivated by lobbyist interests. Neither argument recognizes the fact that the internet isn’t the property of any one country, or that it can be controlled as if it were.
I watched a good part of the hearing/meeting yesterday, and there was some logic for eliminating net neutrality rules (sorry I can’t remember any of it). Nothing as compelling as keeping the rules in place, but I have to admit there was at least a bit of a gray area. Still, I must come down strongly in favor of net neutrality.
No, the internet isn’t owned by any one company or country, but access to it, the speed/quality of that access, and what we pay for it, is controlled by the ISPs in this country.
What happens when the ISP’s are moved out of this country in order to evade artificial government edicts?
You really think the likes of Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T would move out of the US? There are good arguments on both sides of the issue, but this is one I haven’t heard.
johnthecook…If any thinks we have problems with isp providers now,just wait untill net neutrality is done away with.I can envision a day when every search engine will be controlled by the Government. One will have to pay for a face book account,a Twitter account,a Youtube account or any other type of internet account and will have to pay so that one service can interact with each other. This is just my opinion.
We may not have to pay for those things individually, but I can easily see having to pay more every month just to keep our internet access, and/or if we don’t pay more, our speeds may be throttled. As it is, Comcast raises my rates a bit every year, and my access slows considerable between 5 and 7 when everyone gets home from work and turns on their computers. On the other hand, my son argues that more mergers and higher rates are necessary if the ISPs are to maintain their current equipment and capabilities and keep expanding them to keep up with more and more demand. I can see both sides. But I still don’t think the fee structures should be unequal and allowed to put individuals at a disadvantage.
Net neutrality IS government control by virtue of its intention to regulate, provide sanctions, create protected monopolies, enforce arbitrary edicts and punish both real and imagined non-compliance.
Should the government control the fee structures of competing grocery stores? Car companies? Competing health insurance companies? Oh wait…
As I said, there are legitimate arguments on both sides. I just happen to think that an important communications system should not be left in the hands of a few corporate monopolies who care only about profits. Too many examples right here in Denver of telephone monopoly, energy monopoly, etc.
The government could require resource sharing much like (in Texas anyway) other utilities are required to do. I can buy electricity from scads (30 something) of different providers. I pay an intermediate broker to pick the best that varies on a month to month basis. Last month I paid a company I’d never heard of before.
Lucky you. Here (the Denver metro, at least) both gas and electricity come from the same company and there is no other source. No competition. Talk about being screwed. And they raise the rates every year, of course. Oh, and they do offer wind energy too, if you can afford to pay extra for it.