FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai Opposes Open Internet, Claims U.S. Internet Model Superior To Europe's

Status
Not open for further replies.

hajila

Distinguished
May 20, 2009
63
1
18,635
0
The fact that a regulation has not yet gone into effect does not mean that the industry shift was not caused by that regulation. Large capital investments take years. Just the rumor of a proposed regulation can alter billions in investments. That being said, assigning causation to any highly complex system with so many variables is impossible. The reality is that more regulation generally does deter capital investment. At this point, however, short of truly onerous regulations, the Internet is a self-sustaining force. Unless there is a massive change on the demand side, infrastructure will continue to grow at a break neck pace.
 

Joker41NAM

Reputable
Jul 5, 2015
45
0
4,530
0
I wonder what those download speed and investment numbers would look like, if they were adjusted for population density? American ISPs HAVE to put more money into their infrastructure, because their client base is so much more spread out.

In other notes, I have to say that this, along with many other articles on the net-neutrality regulation, are much more opinion than news. The writer is clearly biased, and isn't even trying to hide it.
 

cscott_it

Distinguished
Jul 30, 2009
474
0
18,810
7
Having worked for and with ISPs in the past (MSP, so outsourced IT), that statement is ridiculous. ISPs invest to a point where they are "competitive" against whatever metrics they cook up, and unless you happen to be one of the lucky few that live in a test market - it takes someone threatening to shake up the game before action is taken (see ISP responses to Google Fiber).

The fact of the matter is that instead of "investing" in their infrastructure, they have been pandering to shareholders - which isn't in and of itself a bad thing, but when your equipment is aging and your "investment" strategy is least cost replacement policies....well, then problems arise.

Do you consider patching potholes and filling them with dirt for 5 years an investment strategy in infrastructure? I don't, I call that maintenance (at best).
 
Sep 10, 2015
8
0
4,510
0
"We, the People" RIP.
Impose them a percentage on their revenue to develop their infrastructure, and if they don't want to do it, then fine them with a huge amount of money.
 


I only follow the facts. If Ajit Pai wants to put together a proper argument backed by facts, I would write approvingly of it. I would say that these are serious issues that need to be addressed by the FCC, Tom Wheeler, etc. before the regulations can move forward. I don't dismiss anything based on my personal opinion. As my job is to write the news, I'd even write fairly or even favorably about a topic which I wholeheartedly disagree with, because that is what my job requires me to do.

That being said, I am also required to critically think about news as it is presented. If a company, company representative, or government official says something, we have a duty to analyse it. If we have hard factual evidence that goes against what is being said, we need to report it to our readers. That is all I have done.
 

rayden54

Honorable
May 14, 2013
184
0
10,690
2
"Cut back on infrastructure investments?" They've had 8 years and they haven't made a single improvement to my internet. How can they cut back from NOTHING?
 

Dave K

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2009
115
0
18,680
0
Does anyone seriously expect that a public sector exec. in such a political position isn't going to have a highly political (as in... beholding to others) agenda? The whole argument would hold more water if US companies didn't lag behind much of the developed world on the investment side even before the changes last year. They've been fat dumb and happy... and they want to get fatter, dumber, and happier by adding additional revenue streams without the annoying need for infrastructure investment.
 

webbwbb

Distinguished
Aug 18, 2009
221
0
18,680
0
This is a very inciteful article that shows a different side to the whole net neutrality issue:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflix-poisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate/
 


That article is out dated and factually inaccurate. Netflix didn't want to connect to its customers without having to pay, it wanted to not be overcharged because of the amount of bandwidth it uses. The high amount of bandwidth used by sites like Netflix lead ISPs to create a multi-tear system with "Fast Lanes" and "Slow Lanes" for corporations. The ISPs which did this throttled or blocked access to Netflix so that end-users couldn't access it. They only stopped doing this when Netflix agreed to pay the ISPs off. It wasn't legal, it is essentially extortion, but there wasn't anything Netflix could do about it except fight lengthy legal battles. The Open Internet is a legal government regulation that prohibits ISPs from doing this. Netflix still has to pay for Internet service and to get the content to the various ISPs. This just makes it so Netflix doesn't have to pay to get the content from the ISPs to the individual end-users, which are already paying for that service and shouldn't be blocked from watching content of their choice.
 

Dr_b_

Honorable
May 17, 2013
15
0
10,510
0
Political agendas don't lead to good policy making, although its impossible to remove politics from government agencies, it would be in everyone's best interest if it were possible. AP is holding to pro-business republican party line, probably also positioning himself for post FCC job in industry or other government elected office - if you heard him speak on other topics its quite obvious.
 

junkeymonkey

Polypheme
BANNED
I wish he had to work off this internet service in my area I think 3ed world has better than tis crap offer as far as hard wire the bes we can get is still 56k [thanks AT$T ]

I mean its 2015 in the U.S of A and internet like it was the 90's .. just goes to show these guys live in a closed society/ big city that has everything offered and not a clue what a lot of rural area folks still got to deal with

my choices at&t 56k verison wireless works but we don't have 4g yet or something like wild blue satellite type service that it got to be perfect atmospheric conditions or a bird don't land on the dish

anyway all them guys see is whats big town and that's all where any money is spent so I guess really don't have a clue about nothing out side Washington dc area ??
 

somebodyspecial

Honorable
Sep 20, 2012
1,459
0
11,310
20


Don't forget he was nominated for the position by Barack Obama (though at the suggestion of Mitch M.) and then confirmed UNANIMOUSLY.

They are ALL bought off (both sides), which is why we need a RICH business man (with proven abilities to RUN something large and MAKE MONEY doing it with massive efficiency) at this point to run the country, which is basically the largest business in the world. The problem we have is most of the 536 (incl POTUS) people currently running our govt, have no idea how to manage ANYTHING and have never done anything in life but RUN FOR OFFICE over and over and over, while padding their wallets yearly via more and more lobbyists paying checks to sell us out.

We desperately NEED people who know how to make money and probably more importantly FIRE employees that SUCK, are on the take, or don't take their position as OUR employees, SERIOUSLY. They seem to all have no idea THEY WORK FOR US! I will be VOTING against any incumbent with more than 4yrs in office (and less too if they sucked so far). Maybe they will get the message. Term limits should exist to stop this lobby-bought for life crap anyway. We still have the EXACT veterans scandal going on now (see recent report) 2yrs later, with nothing changed and NOBODY has been FIRED. I expected HUNDREDS fired by now (thousands?), without PENSIONS for negligence etc. I'm looking at YOU John Mccain. Chairman of the ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, and NOBODY fired yet. YOU sir, are FIRED ASAP. Multiple people changing seats, stepping down (sliding sideways into other great positions), is FAILURE. Anyone involved in this should not be allowed to EVER work in govt related jobs again. Period. That harsh? Tell it to the dead veterans families and those STILL waiting on lists just to get help. We should be talking about jail time for those who got bonuses for throwing forms in the trash (shredded, whatever) from vets. I could go on about scandal after scandal and thousands more that need firing and or jail time, but you get the point. There is a reason congress has a 17% rating nation-wide. FIRE them all next Nov please! VOTE (them out! both sides!).

Bring on the Google's, municipalities, etc to compete NOW and we'll see how fast they start spending on upgrades. OP was right, they only respond when google threatens coming to their area. We need massive threats from companies (or cities) to are getting into ISP business ASAP. Why apple/msft etc are not following google is beyond me. Together they could force upgrades (or actually do it themselves) all over USA just by saying "we're coming with Gbit unlimited for $50-70 to city X, Y, and Z". You'd hear announcements from Cox, Comcast etc in weeks if not days. AT&T actually BEAT Google into Austin and Google was going first (supposedly), so clearly they have plans already in place to upgrade basically overnight, but are just waiting to do it when FORCED by competition.
 

jalek

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2007
524
1
18,995
1
Google came to town and much of the Portland/SW Washington region saw Comcast speeds double overnight, even on the lower tiers. The infrastructure wasn't upgraded overnight, they just needed a reason to provide the higher speeds.
 

David_95

Reputable
Sep 11, 2015
2
0
4,520
1
I'm the IT director for a small wisp and I'd like to speak candidly for the other side. I don't disagree with net neutrality, in fact I'm an avid supporter of it. I have personally advocated for and implemented policies for my company that directly support it, we don't data cap, we don't throttle any traffic, to us traffic is traffic plain and simple. We've never raised anyone's prices, only lowered them. I work on the other side and I can confidently tell you that no reasonable person would argue against the tenants of net neutrality. There exists significant potential for abuse by the major tier one providers that control the backbone of the internet. There are few of them and they possess the capacity to erect barriers to entry so staggering and complete that the internet we've come to know and depend on would be irrevocably changed. Changed from an open forum dictated predominantly by the merit and worth of it's content and ideas to another form of mass media where the few create content for the masses. To this point in time we've pursued this thing we've created with the attitude that traffic is traffic, had this not been the model disruptive services like YouTube, Pandora, Netflix, etc. would not have emerged from relative obscurity to dominate and change their respective markets. This model is most certainly threatened and anyone who denies his is either willfully ignorant or intentionally spreading misinformation. Net neutrality is not the issue, it's the way it was done that's concerning. Title II is cumbersome with many of the provisions having no place in regulating the internet. While the fcc has chosen forbearance for many of the unnecessary provisions forbearances are not permanent at any time they can be changed. In my opinion this is the primary issue. The current implementation of net neutrality leaves too many questions for comfort, we've been told that there will be a complaint process and we can be pursued for monetary damages as a result of these complaints but we haven't been told what our scope of liability will be, we've been told that it will be decided on a case by case basis. From my perspective the solution is targeted legislation that explicitly grants the fcc authority to regulate the internet with definable and fixed scope, not a solution created out of a frantic effort of by the fcc to give its self legal authority that it should already have. As a side note the complaints process is already a mess, one of my favourites that was passed by the fcc to another wisp amounted to "stop letting the cable companies f*** you [the fcc] in the a**"

Sorry to rant but sometimes I get tired of being painted as the bad guy, some of us do what we do because we love the internet and believe in its potential to radically change the world. We're not all evil.
 


Funny how that worked out, eh?
 
...Don't forget he was nominated for the position by Barack Obama (though at the suggestion of Mitch M.) and then confirmed UNANIMOUSLY.
The FCC (supposedly) is a non-partisan panel with individual 'partisan' seats. Mitch McConnell nominated Ajit Pai to sit in a Republican 'seat.' The President had no other choice to appoint to that seat.

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe he took Micheal Powell's place (son of Colin Powell).

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY