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

[IInuyasha74]

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.

Thank you for your input here. I can see where it might seem a bit unfair to you, because just about all ISPs are grouped together when talking about the problems that exist in the United States in regards to the Internet. Although essentially all major ISPs have a hand in creating the problems we face with the Internet, there are smaller ISPs which aren't involved and shouldn't face so much scrutiny. You also raised some legitimate issues that really need addressed and tweaked in the Open Internet regulations. Unfortunately, people like Ajit Pai are the ones leading the arguments for reforming the Open Internet, and the arguments that get presented by them are less solid.

 

[MasterMace]

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.

The US Population is vastly compressed to a few small areas surrounding cities. Over 50million people live along a smaller corridor from DC to Boston along Interstate 95. If this were something as silly as "population density", the networks in 3 areas of the US would dwarf all but 3 countries - these 3 areas being the Bos-Wash megalopolis, the SoCal megalopolis, and the SHAD megalopolis. The amusing part of BosWash is that the length of it is extremely long, but because the width is so narrow, the land area is tiny, and thus the population density is 930/sq mi. Because of the triangle shape of SHAD in Texas, the land area gets to 60,000 sq mi. The Great Lakes megalopolis is just too big land wise to be considered dense. San Bernardino makes the megalopolis between LA and TJ large land mass wise as well. To give that perspective, England has 4 major metros, spanning most of the country, totalling out around 17mil people. (Greater London, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester). The comparable area is the Tokaido Corridor in Japan, spanning 750 miles from Tokyo to Fukuoka, with 80mil.

The US Model is superior to the Europe model, but vastly inferior to the Japanese and Korean models. You will not find a better internet connection than what you will in Seoul or Tokyo.

 

[somebodyspecial]

...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).

So how does this change what I said? They are all bought in govt (by the money that "appoints" them, or the money that "elects" them). The fact that there are republican or democrat seats tells you all you need to know doesn't it? Listen to what comes out of this guy's mouth and tell me he is not working as a partisan. He might as well sit up their with the words I WORK FOR CABLE on his shirt.

The word "supposedly" really has no place here It's a game of who ever has the most "partisans" at a given time wins when a vote comes up that affects their side. Nobody acts on their own, but rather in the interests of the money that is behind them. So in effect it's a partisan panel in the end right? A fly in the ointment seems to be wheeler (at least for now), as it was expected he'd side with his employer from before (lobbyist for cable companies). I guess that's what happens when someone is old enough (rich enough?) to not care about their owners opinions...ROFL. Maybe Google/Netflix etc ganged up and slipped him a big check somehow? LOL. He was named top 20 most influential in cable/telecom and worked for these people for 25yrs. Is he bucking the system or just knows in the end a lawsuit ends it against him anyway? Who knows, but I like what he's doing right NOW. I think he's the only guy to get into the hall of fame for both wireless and cable. Maybe the about face is because his wife was a lobbyist for all the things he was against while working for cable/telecom? Those wives cause us men to do strange things right? ROFL. Maybe he really is just representing US, as he should. He is an entrepreneur though, so maybe he's always been kind of "little guy" vs. goliath in his own mind.

As president you can't say "NO because he works for cable and is biased as such" to a seat? It is a recommendation, not a "you must take this man" deal correct? These are all jokes in reality, and they should be elected by US, the people who get screwed by these people so if in mistake, we can fire them ASAP...LOL. It's more of a "I want this loser for X committee so I can make all my donors happy because he'll surely do everything we tell him, so if you give me this loser, I'll not block you for that loser you want on Y committee to make your donors happy". Followed by "DEAL, I accept your loser in exchange for mine". ROFL. I'm laughing at how absurd our system is, but this seriously sucks and is the reason we are not in #1 in internet speeds and pricing today, among many other problems this lobbying checks crap causes.

 

[Woody87]

The reality is that more regulation generally does deter capital investment.

More monopoly is an even greater deterrent to capital investment.

This has become, unfortunately, a partisan issue and Republican lawmakers have blindly tacked it to their all encompassing resistance mentality. I hear silly right wing rhetoric such as "Obama is regulating your internet" from the Fox news addicts who spout such sayings with no knowledge of the issues at hand.

The audacious pandering to paid interests is so incredibly obvious one wonders what is wrong with anybody who even notices, let alone listens to such nonsense.

 

[IInuyasha74]

The reality is that more regulation generally does deter capital investment.

More monopoly is an even greater deterrent to capital investment.

This has become, unfortunately, a partisan issue and Republican lawmakers have blindly tacked it to their all encompassing resistance mentality. I hear silly right wing rhetoric such as "Obama is regulating your internet" from the Fox news addicts who spout such sayings with no knowledge of the issues at hand.

The audacious pandering to paid interests is so incredibly obvious one wonders what is wrong with anybody who even notices, let alone listens to such nonsense.

There is a lot of that. Unfortunately, when the FCC commissioners start talking, most people stop listening. If you ever watch an FCC open meeting you will understand exactly what I mean. The topics they discuss are so heavily entrenched in legal decisions, legal precedents, regulations, and technical terminology that it both sounds incredibly boring and can be very hard to understand. Now I can understand them fairly well when just sitting and listening to them, but when I first started watching these meetings I had to use the typed record of the meeting and do additional research just to understand.

As this is related to my work, I took the time to thoroughly research what happens inside of the FCC and the Open Internet regulations. Most aren't going to do that though, so they only get the politically spun message that someone like Fox News puts out. That happens with a lot of topics today, like just about anything that happens in politics, and it wouldn't be so bad, if not for the large speech barrier keeping people from understanding it on their own didn't exist.

 

[Joker41NAM]

[
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.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with with your assessment of your own objectivity. The fourth paragraph from the beginning, and final 3 paragraphs, are clearly commentary/opinion, not reporting. Remove those paragraphs, and the rest of the article would be the proper, objective reporting that you claim.