The heart of the disagreement is not over "net neutrality" per se, it's over government policy under the heading of net neutrality; a litany of government regulation and classification as a public utility that result in excessive government control. Hand wringing over aims to change policy on this is at this point a lot like defending Obamacare on the basis that the Affordable Care Act is affordable (or free) just because it says so in the name.
You seem confused.
Nope.
"Media outlets across the political spectrum reporting on Pai’s promotion have focused on a single issue—the FCC’s controversial 2015 open Internet rulemaking, which transformed Internet access providers into public utilities. In doing so, they have trivialized the very real and important issues facing the agency and its new Chairman.
Much worse than that, they have badly conflated and misreported Pai’s views on net neutrality itself—an almost entirely separate topic.
The how and why of this serious reporting failure is the real story here.
But first, a reality check. Pai has consistently supported the basic principles of net neutrality—the common sense view that ISPs should not be allowed to block specific legal websites or devices, intentionally slow some traffic to benefit others, misrepresent their network management practices or otherwise behave in conduct long-considered anti-competitive in American law.
Here’s an extended excerpt from Pai’s statement issued at the time the FCC began considering its most recent effort to craft prophylactic rules to enforce net neutrality in 2014, noting the “vigorous” public debate over how best to do so consistent with the law:
But we should not let that debate obscure some important common ground: namely, a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. Indeed, this consensus reaches back at least a decade. In 2004, then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell outlined four principles of Internet freedom: The freedom to access lawful content, the freedom to use applications, the freedom to attach personal devices to the network, and the freedom to obtain service plan information.
One year later, the FCC unanimously endorsed these principles when it adopted the Internet Policy
Respect for these four Internet freedoms has aided the Internet’s tremendous growth over the last decade. It has shielded online competitors from anticompetitive practices. It has fostered long-term investments in broadband infrastructure. It has made the Internet an unprecedented platform for civic engagement, commerce, entertainment, and more. And it has made the United States the epicenter of online innovation. I support the four Internet freedoms, and I am committed to protecting them going forward."
.....
What is true is that Pai objected strongly to the bizarre process that waylaid the agency over the next several months, including an unprecedented intervention by the White House and the legally fraught decision in early 2015 to enact the new rules while, at the same time, transforming broadband Internet access services into public utilities.
But Pai’s 67-page dissent from that decision—which, in nearly 400 pages, itself said almost nothing about net neutrality or consensus on the rules themselves —was devoted entirely and sensibly to problems with the FCC’s process, and authority. It focused on the certain negative unintended consequences of former Chairman Tom Wheeler’s decision to abandon what Wheeler himself described as a simple “blueprint” provided by the courts for getting the rules enacted in favor of public utility “reclassification.”
(At yesterday’s annual State of the Net conference in D.C., for example, one of those consequences was bemoaned repeatedly by policy experts on all sides of the debate. In reclassifying broadband access as a public utility, the legal authority of the Federal Trade Commission to police anti-competitive practices was immediately cut off.
That removed what had been an active and often aggressive “cop on the beat” for consumer protection, and likely the reason actual net neutrality concerns always remained theoretical during nearly two decades when the FCC had no rules of its own in place.)
A world where the FCC is part of a corrupt administration. Buy the regs you want when you know they are coming.
It's how it's done. One step away from a shakedown
Instead of making up weird conspiracies just say it's part of the Republican platform and admit that's why you agree.
Why not pull your head our of your ass instead? Read the Forbes article SD quoted
Or just rattle dnc propaganda
Indeed, the 2015 order devotes almost no discussion to the rules at all. It is one part net neutrality, and 99 parts public utility—including a return to the Ma Bell days of regulated rates, services, and artificial barriers to entry.
The heart of the disagreement is not over "net neutrality" per se, it's over government policy under the heading of net neutrality; a litany of government regulation and classification as a public utility that result in excessive government control. Hand wringing over aims to change policy on this is at this point a lot like defending Obamacare on the basis that the Affordable Care Act is affordable (or free) just because it says so in the name.
Oh so net neutrality is bad because big government is bad. We just shouldn't have any regulations. While we are at it, let's deregulate banks more. And get rid of the EPA and the department of education. That'll help our country.
I think 99+% of the American public supports net neutrality. Trump is going to have to be very tough on this issue, if he wants it to pass...maybe even an executive order. He should fill all the FCC chairs with cable executives.
If previous conversations here on this topic are any indication, most of the American public has no idea what net neutrality is.
If I like my internet provider planpornhub, can I keep it?
A world where the FCC is part of a corrupt administration. Buy the regs you want when you know they are coming.
It's how it's done. One step away from a shakedown
Instead of making up weird conspiracies just say it's part of the Republican platform and admit that's why you agree.
Why not pull your head our of your ass instead? Read the Forbes article SD quoted
Or just rattle dnc propaganda
Indeed, the 2015 order devotes almost no discussion to the rules at all. It is one part net neutrality, and 99 parts public utility—including a return to the Ma Bell days of regulated rates, services, and artificial barriers to entry.
I did read it. It's a long op-ed about his feelings.
ISPs absolutely should be treated and regulated like a utility.
A world where the FCC is part of a corrupt administration. Buy the regs you want when you know they are coming.
It's how it's done. One step away from a shakedown
Instead of making up weird conspiracies just say it's part of the Republican platform and admit that's why you agree.
Why not pull your head our of your ass instead? Read the Forbes article SD quoted
Or just rattle dnc propaganda
Indeed, the 2015 order devotes almost no discussion to the rules at all. It is one part net neutrality, and 99 parts public utility—including a return to the Ma Bell days of regulated rates, services, and artificial barriers to entry.
I suspect most of the snowflakes in here are oblivious to the Ma Bell days, let alone the days when air travel was regulated in the same manner. Airline deregulation in particular was a huge win for the people. It opened up competition and brought rates crashing down so that the average person could easily afford air travel. No one in their right mind would want a return to the days prior to deregulation, and yet, snowflakes are supporting just such a move on internet service. Pai's positions are consistent with those of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Godspeed to him.
A world where the FCC is part of a corrupt administration. Buy the regs you want when you know they are coming.
It's how it's done. One step away from a shakedown
Instead of making up weird conspiracies just say it's part of the Republican platform and admit that's why you agree.
Why not pull your head our of your ass instead? Read the Forbes article SD quoted
Or just rattle dnc propaganda
Indeed, the 2015 order devotes almost no discussion to the rules at all. It is one part net neutrality, and 99 parts public utility—including a return to the Ma Bell days of regulated rates, services, and artificial barriers to entry.
I suspect most of the snowflakes in here are oblivious to the Ma Bell days, let alone the days when air travel was regulated in the same manner. Airline deregulation in particular was a huge win for the people. It opened up competition and brought rates crashing down so that the average person could easily afford air travel. No one in their right mind would want a return to the days prior to deregulation, and yet, snowflakes are supporting just such a move on internet service. Pai's positions are consistent with those of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Godspeed to him.
You do know that ISPs are not the same as airlines, right? Next you'll say that banks need be deregulated to provide Americans with cheaper banking options.
Comcast is literally the shittiest company in the history of the world.
When I lived in Baltimore I had to drive like 25 minutes to go to the Comcast store to replace the piece of shit DVR like 5 times a year and I would wait an hour and a half with a bunch of ghetto smelly fucktards.
It's like the DMV but filled with Somalian refugees.
Comcast is literally the shittiest company in the history of the world.
When I lived in Baltimore I had to drive like 25 minutes to go to the Comcast store to replace the piece of shit DVR like 5 times a year and I would wait an hour and a half with a bunch of ghetto smelly fucktards.
It's like the DMV but filled with Somalian refugees.
I think 99+% of the American public supports net neutrality. Trump is going to have to be very tough on this issue, if he wants it to pass...maybe even an executive order. He should fill all the FCC chairs with cable executives.
If previous conversations here on this topic are any indication, most of the American public has no idea what net neutrality is.
Comcast is literally the shittiest company in the history of the world.
When I lived in Baltimore I had to drive like 25 minutes to go to the Comcast store to replace the piece of shit DVR like 5 times a year and I would wait an hour and a half with a bunch of ghetto smelly fucktards.
It's like the DMV but filled with Somalian refugees.
Strangely Comcast business is pretty fucking good.
Comcast is literally the shittiest company in the history of the world.
When I lived in Baltimore I had to drive like 25 minutes to go to the Comcast store to replace the piece of shit DVR like 5 times a year and I would wait an hour and a half with a bunch of ghetto smelly fucktards.
It's like the DMV but filled with Somalian refugees.
Comments
"Media outlets across the political spectrum reporting on Pai’s promotion have focused on a single issue—the FCC’s controversial 2015 open Internet rulemaking, which transformed Internet access providers into public utilities. In doing so, they have trivialized the very real and important issues facing the agency and its new Chairman.
Much worse than that, they have badly conflated and misreported Pai’s views on net neutrality itself—an almost entirely separate topic.
The how and why of this serious reporting failure is the real story here.
But first, a reality check. Pai has consistently supported the basic principles of net neutrality—the common sense view that ISPs should not be allowed to block specific legal websites or devices, intentionally slow some traffic to benefit others, misrepresent their network management practices or otherwise behave in conduct long-considered anti-competitive in American law.
Here’s an extended excerpt from Pai’s statement issued at the time the FCC began considering its most recent effort to craft prophylactic rules to enforce net neutrality in 2014, noting the “vigorous” public debate over how best to do so consistent with the law:
But we should not let that debate obscure some important common ground: namely, a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. Indeed, this consensus reaches back at least a decade. In 2004, then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell outlined four principles of Internet freedom: The freedom to access lawful content, the freedom to use applications, the freedom to attach personal devices to the network, and the freedom to obtain service plan information.
One year later, the FCC unanimously endorsed these principles when it adopted the Internet Policy
Respect for these four Internet freedoms has aided the Internet’s tremendous growth over the last decade. It has shielded online competitors from anticompetitive practices. It has fostered long-term investments in broadband infrastructure. It has made the Internet an unprecedented platform for civic engagement, commerce, entertainment, and more. And it has made the United States the epicenter of online innovation. I support the four Internet freedoms, and I am committed to protecting them going forward."
.....
What is true is that Pai objected strongly to the bizarre process that waylaid the agency over the next several months, including an unprecedented intervention by the White House and the legally fraught decision in early 2015 to enact the new rules while, at the same time, transforming broadband Internet access services into public utilities.
But Pai’s 67-page dissent from that decision—which, in nearly 400 pages, itself said almost nothing about net neutrality or consensus on the rules themselves —was devoted entirely and sensibly to problems with the FCC’s process, and authority. It focused on the certain negative unintended consequences of former Chairman Tom Wheeler’s decision to abandon what Wheeler himself described as a simple “blueprint” provided by the courts for getting the rules enacted in favor of public utility “reclassification.”
(At yesterday’s annual State of the Net conference in D.C., for example, one of those consequences was bemoaned repeatedly by policy experts on all sides of the debate. In reclassifying broadband access as a public utility, the legal authority of the Federal Trade Commission to police anti-competitive practices was immediately cut off.
That removed what had been an active and often aggressive “cop on the beat” for consumer protection, and likely the reason actual net neutrality concerns always remained theoretical during nearly two decades when the FCC had no rules of its own in place.)
It's how it's done. One step away from a shakedown
Or just rattle dnc propaganda
Indeed, the 2015 order devotes almost no discussion to the rules at all. It is one part net neutrality, and 99 parts public utility—including a return to the Ma Bell days of regulated rates, services, and artificial barriers to entry.
ISPs absolutely should be treated and regulated like a utility.
I appreciate your return to reality though.
When I lived in Baltimore I had to drive like 25 minutes to go to the Comcast store to replace the piece of shit DVR like 5 times a year and I would wait an hour and a half with a bunch of ghetto smelly fucktards.
It's like the DMV but filled with Somalian refugees.
The Wire barely did that hellhole justice.