Republican FCC Commissioner Slams ‘Obama’s 332-Page Plan To Regulate The Internet’

[CaptFun]

**Republican FCC Commissioner Slams ‘Obama’s 332-Page Plan To Regulate The Internet’

**

Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai on Friday raised the first of many criticisms to come about FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s aggressive net neutrality plan distributed to commissioners Thursday, which Pai described as “President Obama’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet.”

In a statement released Friday, Pai lamented the fact that the 332-page plan, which he tweeted a picture of himself holding next to a picture of Obama, won’t be released to the public until after the commission votes on its implementation later this month.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Here is President Obama’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what’s inside. ** – FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai**

FCC neutrality:

Hmm. Jay Leno … gone, pushed out by Obama-supporting GE despite his high ratings …

Rush Limbaugh pushed to a less powerful LA station (heard on AM with more difficulty until that new station’s high ratings merit a power boost) …

Now the internet comes under “fairness” scrutiny? Read this while you can … I guess.

 

[Suudy]

I’m a bit torn on this one. And as a computer “geek” (I’m a software developer) and as a rural resident (I live in BFE), I see both sides.

There’s a decent article on some of the details here:

arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/dont-call-them-utility-rules-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regime-explained/

I’m torn on the so-called “internet fast lanes.” If companies invest in more capacity, it makes sense to me that they should be able to finance that expansion how they wish. There is limited bandwidth, and to give all content equal access could mean that those who consume certain content would be disproportionately using bandwidth. That is, the household that watches a lot of Netflix or Amazon Prime or Hulu, would be using more bandwidth than another household that merely surfs the internet or reads email. And if companies are prohibited from discriminating based on content, they’ll be forced to discriminate based on bandwidth used. I think that will likely lead to data usage caps or overage charges for data.

So far, the FCC isn’t calling for data caps or elimination of overage charges. But I think that is inevitable with a ban on data prioritization. Yet they claim authority to do so if they think “caps are used to harm consumers or competitors.” But they don’t mention any criteria used to make this determination.

My concern is that the FCC may favor one side over another than actually remain neutral. For example, in my late father’s town, the local PUD provided high-speed fiber internet. Of course their infrastructure was built with tax dollars and their service is cheaper than DSL or cable. My concern is that the FCC will favor those types if institutions over private service providers. Verizon, Frontier, CenturyLink, Comcast, etc do not have tax dollars to help fund their infrastructure. So it’s no surprise that they don’t expand broadband service into certain areas. It is encouraging to read in the Ars Technica article that the FCC is considering opening certain infrastructure to competitors (notably Google’s desire to use existing telephone and power poles). I hope it truly does remain neutral on this point.

Of course, none us know the contents of the report. And I find it especially troubling that the contents are being hidden until after the vote. So much for Obama’s promise of transparency.

 

[Neofight]

What in “Republican FCC Commissioner Slams Obama” is so shocking!

If there was a Republican Commissioner of the National Weather Service, wouldn’t he be blaming Obama for all the snow in Boston?

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’m a bit torn on this one. And as a computer “geek” (I’m a software developer) and as a rural resident (I live in BFE), I see both sides.

There’s a decent article on some of the details here:

arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/dont-call-them-utility-rules-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regime-explained/

I’m torn on the so-called “internet fast lanes.” If companies invest in more capacity, it makes sense to me that they should be able to finance that expansion how they wish. There is limited bandwidth, and to give all content equal access could mean that those who consume certain content would be disproportionately using bandwidth. That is, the household that watches a lot of Netflix or Amazon Prime or Hulu, would be using more bandwidth than another household that merely surfs the internet or reads email. And if companies are prohibited from discriminating based on content, they’ll be forced to discriminate based on bandwidth used. I think that will likely lead to data usage caps or overage charges for data.

So far, the FCC isn’t calling for data caps or elimination of overage charges. But I think that is inevitable with a ban on data prioritization. Yet they claim authority to do so if they think “caps are used to harm consumers or competitors.” But they don’t mention any criteria used to make this determination.

My concern is that the FCC may favor one side over another than actually remain neutral. For example, in my late father’s town, the local PUD provided high-speed fiber internet. Of course their infrastructure was built with tax dollars and their service is cheaper than DSL or cable. My concern is that the FCC will favor those types if institutions over private service providers. Verizon, Frontier, CenturyLink, Comcast, etc do not have tax dollars to help fund their infrastructure. So it’s no surprise that they don’t expand broadband service into certain areas. It is encouraging to read in the Ars Technica article that the FCC is considering opening certain infrastructure to competitors (notably Google’s desire to use existing telephone and power poles). I hope it truly does remain neutral on this point.

Of course, none us know the contents of the report. And I find it especially troubling that the contents are being hidden until after the vote. So much for Obama’s promise of transparency.

The tie-breaker here should be that the government will just screw this up. Also, it’ll hurt small businesses.

 

[CaptFun]

I’m a bit torn on this one. And as a computer “geek” (I’m a software developer) and as a rural resident (I live in BFE), I see both sides.

There’s a decent article on some of the details here:

arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/dont-call-them-utility-rules-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regime-explained/

I’m torn on the so-called “internet fast lanes.” If companies invest in more capacity, it makes sense to me that they should be able to finance that expansion how they wish. There is limited bandwidth, and to give all content equal access could mean that those who consume certain content would be disproportionately using bandwidth. That is, the household that watches a lot of Netflix or Amazon Prime or Hulu, would be using more bandwidth than another household that merely surfs the internet or reads email. And if companies are prohibited from discriminating based on content, they’ll be forced to discriminate based on bandwidth used. I think that will likely lead to data usage caps or overage charges for data.

So far, the FCC isn’t calling for data caps or elimination of overage charges. But I think that is inevitable with a ban on data prioritization. Yet they claim authority to do so if they think “caps are used to harm consumers or competitors.” But they don’t mention any criteria used to make this determination.

My concern is that the FCC may favor one side over another than actually remain neutral. For example, in my late father’s town, the local PUD provided high-speed fiber internet. Of course their infrastructure was built with tax dollars and their service is cheaper than DSL or cable. My concern is that the FCC will favor those types if institutions over private service providers. Verizon, Frontier, CenturyLink, Comcast, etc do not have tax dollars to help fund their infrastructure. So it’s no surprise that they don’t expand broadband service into certain areas. It is encouraging to read in the Ars Technica article that the FCC is considering opening certain infrastructure to competitors (notably Google’s desire to use existing telephone and power poles). I hope it truly does remain neutral on this point.

Of course, none us know the contents of the report. And I find it especially troubling that the contents are being hidden until after the vote. So much for Obama’s promise of transparency.

Thanks for posting Suudy. I’ll read the above later. Pressed for time now.

 

[CaptFun]

What in “Republican FCC Commissioner Slams Obama” is so shocking!

If there was a Republican Commissioner of the National Weather Service, wouldn’t he be blaming Obama for all the snow in Boston?

What I wonder about that was why it was necessary to put Republican in the headline. Is that part of his job title?

Or did the headline writer feature that fact for some reason?

Such as:

" Say, the FCC is bipartisan … there’s a Republican commissioner even though there’s a Democratic Administration!"

Or:

“An FCC Commissioner is slamming the Internet Regulation Plan … but remember, the plan is Obama’s … and he’s a Republican.”

That is … is this an example of innoculation of the readership before we get to the facts of the story? Ironic if so, as the regulation is supposed to be towards a “neutral internet”.

IMO the story is news. But you make a good point. Republicans criticizing Democratic proposals (or vice-versa) is NOT such big news.

The size of the story per the amount of people who may be affected by the rulings (all of us) was my reasoning behind bothering to post the story. The fact that there is even a little controversy within the FCC on the matter is a secondary (but still important) bit of news IMO.

 

[pnewton]

I am a big fan of net neutrality. As a consumer, I do not want to pay for one thing, and have another delivered, which is where we are heading. If I contract for a certain speed, I do not think it too much to get that speed without the ISP either (1) throttling dot.com traffic that do not pay them for not throttling them, or (2) prioritizing others that pay them so that I have speed I do not pay for when I use another company that does not pay to play.

If there was truly a way for a company to pay extra to give faster speed,** without interring with the speed of other companies**, then there would be a valid point to allowing such competition. Until that point, I support the President’s initiative.

I think one option that might exist is a free ISP that allows only those companies that pay, loaded with commercials and given for free at the benefit of the companies that pay. That would seem legitimate, if anyone would want such a beast.

 

[CaptFun]

I am a big fan of net neutrality. As a consumer, I do not want to pay for one thing, and have another delivered, which is where we are heading. If I contract for a certain speed, I do not think it too much to get that speed without the ISP either (1) throttling dot.com traffic that do not pay them for not throttling them, or (2) prioritizing others that pay them so that I have speed I do not pay for when I use another company that does not pay to play.

If there was truly a way for a company to pay extra to give faster speed,** without interring with the speed of other companies**, then there would be a valid point to allowing such competition. Until that point, I support the President’s initiative.

I think one option that might exist is a free ISP that allows only those companies that pay, loaded with commercials and given for free at the benefit of the companies that pay. That would seem legitimate, if anyone would want such a beast.

You’ve got me thinking of this story in a whole different (broader?) way.

Videotape, Cable Company “neutrality”?

My mind ran to when there were the wars between which videotape technology would be the standard (for instance). Anybody else remember being conflicted over whether to buy a betamax or a VHS player back in the day? OK, I’m old.

Back then I was hoping for a single standard OR easily obtained adapters. Cable TV “neutrality” might be making something in demand (example Dodger games last year in LA) available somewhere to everyone … rather than having a cable company that couldn’t or doesn’t operate in your area have all the rights.

Who’s in Charge of What is Neutral? Are there any Check and Balances?

Per this story … the story IS that the story is OUT. That is … it can be examined and is probably not going to be one of those important things that is decided privately and quickly by a few likeminded FCC officials without the needed oversight.

Maybe what I’d be most afraid of would be something like:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/beZambee/sm...772601ca38ab70877424fd79f911bf.png?1336253325

*Once upon a time there was a fox who offered to monitor a henhouse … “Henhouses should be monitored …” he said.

“And who could but agree with that?” the people all said. :sad_yes:*

http://leslieannlloyd.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/220px-reynard-the-fox.jpg?w=599

 

[Suudy]

I am a big fan of net neutrality. As a consumer, I do not want to pay for one thing, and have another delivered, which is where we are heading.

And as a consumer, I do not want the overall level of service to be degraded by other consumers, which is what net neutrality would do. Companies cannot magically summon more bandwidth, and mandating that all content be given the same priority (despite the significant bandwidth requirements of some content) means that somethings else gets crowded out. Internet pipes are only so big. So either you control the flow going into them (which is what “fast lanes” do) or it takes longer to get everything through the pipe.

I see the “fast lanes” akin to toll roads. Some roads are faster because people pay more for them. The government doesn’t treat all vehicles the same, so why should the government treat all content (akin to cars on the road) the same?

If there was truly a way for a company to pay extra to give faster speed,** without interring with the speed of other companies**, then there would be a valid point to allowing such competition. Until that point, I support the President’s initiative.

And I think the only way that is going to happen is with either 1) speed tiers, 2) bandwidth usage caps, and/or 3) overage charges. None of which are popular with consumers.

I think one option that might exist is a free ISP that allows only those companies that pay, loaded with commercials and given for free at the benefit of the companies that pay. That would seem legitimate, if anyone would want such a beast.

There was a company. It was called NetZero. I don’t know if it still exists. And there was a company that provided free long distance (something like for every commercial you listened to got you 1 minute of long distance). I don’t see these surviving.

 

[anthony022071]

Commissioner Pai’s statement on the plan to regular the internet.

fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

Last night, Chairman Wheeler provided his fellow Commissioners with President Obama’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I am disappointed that the plan will not be released publicly. The FCC should be as open and transparent as the Internet itself and post the entire document on its website. Instead, it looks like the FCC will have to pass the President’s plan before the American people will be able to find out what’s really in it.In the coming days, I look forward to continuing to study the plan in detail. Based on my initial examination, however, several points are apparent.

First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.

 

[Neofight]

Commissioner Pai’s statement on the plan to regular the internet.

fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

Last night, Chairman Wheeler provided his fellow Commissioners with President Obama’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I am disappointed that the plan will not be released publicly. The FCC should be as open and transparent as the Internet itself and post the entire document on its website. Instead, it looks like the FCC will have to pass the President’s plan before the American people will be able to find out what’s really in it.In the coming days, I look forward to continuing to study the plan in detail. Based on my initial examination, however, several points are apparent.

First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.

Ahh…got it. I know you believe you are doing a public service, but your agenda is so obvious and so deafening, that when you weighed in, I knew this was a non-issue, except to discredit those you view as political adversaries.

 

[pnewton]

FYI - I would be satisfied if we just had an option of allowing it, where consumers could choose either a neutral net, or one in which the ISP controlled the speed. Then let the consumer market decide. I do have one objection to the plan, even without knowing it. Any regulation that takes 332 pages is clunky and inefficient.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

And as a consumer, I do not want the overall level of service to be degraded by other consumers, which is what net neutrality would do. Companies cannot magically summon more bandwidth, and mandating that all content be given the same priority (despite the significant bandwidth requirements of some content) means that somethings else gets crowded out. Internet pipes are only so big. So either you control the flow going into them (which is what “fast lanes” do) or it takes longer to get everything through the pipe.

Then these companies should not be selling data plans their infrastructure cannot support. Else the consumers should be able to sue for false advertisement and breach of contract.

 

[Suudy]

Then these companies should not be selling data plans their infrastructure cannot support. Else the consumers should be able to sue for false advertisement and breach of contract.

I disagree. Content isn’t neutral. Some content is requires significantly more bandwidth than other content. For example, and audiobook is significantly larger than the ebook equivalent. Non-HD content is SIGNIFICANTLY larger than SD content.

The point is that either an ISP charge by the amount of data (such as bandwidth caps or cost per gigabyte), they charge the providers of content by the size of the content, or they limit the flow of content. What I don’t get is why the latter (limiting the flow of content) is somehow less popular than the other methods. In the case of Netflix, YouTube, etc, they can charge the providers of the content rather than the consumers. What if a customer wants to pay extra every month to get priority access to Amazon Prime, Netflix, Pandora, etc, should that be allowed? With net neutrality, that wouldn’t be possible.

The problem with content neutrality is that ISPs cannot charge based at all on the content. Let’s say (as an extremely simplified example) that ISP A has 1TB/month of bandwidth available, and it has 100 customers. 75% of the customers use 10GB a month streaming movies via Netflix and Hulu. The remainder use uses 1GB a month reading emails and surfing the web. Is it fair to charge both the same price? With content neutrality, the only thing the ISP can do is charge per GB or charge the providers. On the other hand, it can sell each customer an equal share of the 100GB/month (approximately 10GB each) and limit each customer to that 10GB. Or it can limit the overall bandwidth of providers to keep that limit, on average, below 10GB per month.

The point here is that ISP have implemented mechanisms to handle the flow of content on their systems to satisfy the majority of their customers. People don’t like the restriction on certain types of content. But given the choices in most markets, I’m not seeing the issue here. If you think Comcast is too restrictive (I did), switch! I moved to Frontier (when I lived in the Seattle area). If people think that Uncle Sam mandating that all content be treated neutrally is going to magically fix things, it won’t. Instead limits of on content, it will become limits on bandwidth, overage charges, etc. Which do you think will become the least popular? Slow access to Netflix, Hulu, etc? Or hikes in rates or overage charges?

It’s not as simple as you suggest. If all content is neutral, then not all consumers of content are neutral or not all providers of content are neutral. This isn’t some utopia where everything is the same.

(Edit: The alternative is transparency. If “net neutrality” is about transparency, then I’m all on board. Certainly providers should be 100% clear on their bandwidth usage policies and how they limit traffic. And changes on those policies should be broadcast to the customers well in advance of any change. If that’s all it is, I’m 100% on board. But to impose policies on ISPs…I’m not so sure.)

 

[SuperLuigi]

Then these companies should not be selling data plans their infrastructure cannot support. Else the consumers should be able to sue for false advertisement and breach of contract.

Well, that is how the free market works…

 

[SuperLuigi]

Ahh…got it. I know you believe you are doing a public service, but your agenda is so obvious and so deafening, that when you weighed in, I knew this was a non-issue, except to discredit those you view as political adversaries.

Translation: no substantive counterargument.

:tiphat:

 

[Suudy]

Ahh…got it. I know you believe you are doing a public service, but your agenda is so obvious and so deafening, that when you weighed in, I knew this was a non-issue, except to discredit those you view as political adversaries.

Translation: no substantive counterargument.

:tiphat:

Given that anthony022071’s quote was from the FCC, I agree with SuperLuigi’s translation.

 

[stevegravy]

Of course, none us know the contents of the report. And I find it especially troubling that the contents are being hidden until after the vote. So much for Obama’s promise of transparency.

What’s surprising? It is the same slugs that gave us the Obamacare bill,the one that had to be passed so we could find out what was in it.

 

[Suudy]

What’s surprising? It is the same slugs that gave us the Obamacare bill,the one that had to be passed so we could find out what was in it.

Not surprising. Troubling.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Ahh…got it. I know you believe you are doing a public service, but your agenda is so obvious and so deafening, that when you weighed in, I knew this was a non-issue, except to discredit those you view as political adversaries.

What is obvious is the Democrat agenda for the time they remain in control of the levers of bureaucracy. The U.S. Department of Education was created in 1979 by Jimmy Carter out of the old HEW with lots of brave words about improving educational standards and equalizing opportunities. Where we’ve ended up is a place where the president’s wife gets to literally ration food in public schools, else federal funding will be cut off. That’s a reasonable precedent to assume that the proposed federal intrusion into the Internet will, sooner rather than later, end up with a level of governmental intrusion into communications and free speech that would be the envy of North Korea.