Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Communications The Internet

Ajit Pai Offers No Data For Latest Claim That Net Neutrality Hurt Small ISPs (arstechnica.com) 211

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: With days to go before his repeal of net neutrality rules, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai issued a press release about five small ISPs that he says were harmed by the rules. Pai "held a series of telephone calls with small Internet service providers across the country -- from Oklahoma to Ohio, from Montana to Minnesota," his press release said. On these calls, "one constant theme I heard was how Title II had slowed investment," Pai said. But Pai's announcement offered no data to support this assertion. So advocacy group Free Press looked at the FCC's broadband deployment data for these companies and found that four of them had expanded into new territory. The fifth didn't expand into new areas but it did start offering gigabit Internet service. These expansions happened after the FCC imposed its Title II net neutrality rules. (Title II is the statute that the FCC uses to enforce net neutrality rules and regulate common carriers.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ajit Pai Offers No Data For Latest Claim That Net Neutrality Hurt Small ISPs

Comments Filter:
  • by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @03:42PM (#55727475)
    Shocker.
  • no small isps left (Score:5, Insightful)

    by starblazer ( 49187 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @03:46PM (#55727499) Homepage
    What small ISPs? The only people who are "small" are resellers as nobody can access the last mile.
    • by Ranbot ( 2648297 )

      What small ISPs? The only people who are "small" are resellers as nobody can access the last mile.

      Exactly. This talk of increasing ISP competition is smoke and mirrors because the big ISPs have their oligopoly already, and in some areas regions it's a monopoly. They own all the lines and get paid no matter who sells the customer the service. But honestly, that's fine by me... they put in the investments, it's inefficient to have multiple competitors laying separate fiber lines in the same streets, so I'm fine with letting them continue to deliver that vital service and reap the profits. But, instead of

    • by Altrag ( 195300 )

      Because it fits his narrative? Ajit Pai doesn't care about small ISPs. His sponsor Verizon is probably coming in right after him offering to buy those guys out.

      • Because it fits his narrative? Ajit Pai doesn't care about small ISPs. His owner Verizon is probably coming in right after him offering to buy those guys out.

        FTFY

    • by Pikoro ( 844299 ) <init.init@sh> on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @05:12PM (#55728149) Homepage Journal

      In Japan we have this thing called FLETS. Basically, one company puts down the infrastructure, and they own it, but once laid, they have to allow anyone to use it, for a fee of course. What this means is that basically, anyone can start an ISP. You negotiate fees on a per customer basis. I set up my ISP for my local community. I pay $20 per customer I sign up back to the infrastructure owner. The infrastructure owner has a database of ISPs that are registered with them. So in the user's modem, it has username@isp.domain. The infrastructure owner looks it up, replies with weather it's a valid ISP or not, then hands off the authentication to the ISP's authentication server. Once the customer is authorized, the ISP hands the routing back to the infrastructure owner and boom. The customer is online, subject to the rules put in place by the ISP on things like bandwidth, traffic shaping, etc. The infrastructure owner isn't allowed to run it's own ISP, so it forks off a subsidiary and competes with the other ISPs using the same method. You may have multiple dozens of ISPs available to choose from, and switching, is a simple matter of changing your login information on the modem once you have a contract in place with the respective ISP. It's simple, it works, and since pretty much all the ISPs charge within a couple dollars per month of each other, they compete on features, like bandwidth, caps, email plans, and whatnot. The infrastructure owner makes their cash off the fees to the providers and the ISPs are free to charge the customers whatever they want on top of that initial fee. Easy peasy. Really wish they would do that in the USA.

      • Look, this is the good ol U. S. of A. which is a CAPITALIST society. This means that competition reigns supreme, so take your--oh, wait.

      • The reason that Japan does it this way is, the Telecom monopoly breakup occurred AFTER the internet. The incumbent (NTT) had already built internet infrastructure, later it was forced (through deregulation) to provide ISP's with competitive access. AND the rules made it so "the infrastructure owner isn't allowed to run it's own ISP".

        This model will not work in the USA, because the rules keep that coveted 'last mile' in private hands. Phone companies in the USA were forced (through deregulation) to provid

    • There are tons of small ISPs. Try going to one of the broadcast network's streaming services (such as AMC [amc.com] or USA [usanetwork.com]), and try to watch one of the full episodes of a show. To do that, you have to prove you have some kind of cable subscription. There are the big ones listed up top (Verizon, Comcast, Cox, Dish, etc.), but you can look at the full list. It's a VERY long list. Sure, a few are only TV only, but the vast majority are also ISPs. And, yes, most of them are small ISPs.

      Meanwhil

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        If one distinguishes between an ISP and a reseller, as the above poster did, then most of the people on your list are resellers.

  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @03:57PM (#55727579) Homepage Journal

    Plain and simple.

    • by sconeu ( 64226 )

      Q: How can you tell if a politician (or a telecom lawyer) is lying?

      A: His lips move.

  • by nickmalthus ( 972450 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @04:00PM (#55727607)
    There is no doubt that allowing telcoms, who are losing money due to cord cutters jettisoning their overpriced premium services, to install toll booths on the Information Highway will generate hundreds of billions of dollars in profit through artificial scarcity. Pai is only concerned with the investment returns of the telcoms and could care less about the rights of the American public, the people he is supposed to serve and protect.
    • Pai is only concerned with the investment returns of the telcoms

      Yes, that's how it works. The FDA protects the pharmaceutical industry. The DOJ protects the corrections industry. Treasury protects the banks. And so on...

      Unless the house is swept clean next year, don't expect much to change.

      • by GlennC ( 96879 )

        Unless the house is swept clean next year, don't expect much to change.

        Can I have some of whatever it is you're smoking?

      • Unless the house is swept clean

        I think you meant to write "drain the swamp", no?

  • by Revek ( 133289 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @04:03PM (#55727635) Homepage

    How would having our upstream providers throttling us help? This guy doesn't care about the truth. He is the type to make his truth up as he goes. The net is going to be a huge piece of shit after this.

    • by Xyrus ( 755017 )

      Correction: A huge piece of propaganda pushing shit. Remember Citizen's United? Guess what these big ISPs are going to be doing during elections once NN is repealed.

      Comcast: "Comcast customer service."
      Customer: "Uh, yeah I can't access CNN anymore."
      Comcast: "It is our view that CNN is fake news and is no longer tolerated on our networks."
      Customer: "Wait...what?"
      Comcast: "We do however offer full access to Fox News as part of our news providers package for $19.99"
      Customer: "I don't want Fox News. I don't lik

  • by DaveM753 ( 844913 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @04:09PM (#55727673)

    "...held a series of telephone calls with small Internet service providers across the country -- from Oklahoma to Ohio, from Montana to Minnesota..."

    Just FYI, for those without a map handy, that covers 8 out of 50 states, all in the midwest:
    Montana to Minnesota = Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota.
    Oklahoma to Ohio = Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.

    Again...just FYI.

    • There's always a literalist in the crowd. This is probably just two alliterative pairings.

      • I had considered that. However, when it comes to politics and politicians, I'm always looking for suspect motivation. If we argue that his statement is merely alliterative pairings, then why would he not have said California to Connecticut and Alaska to Alabama? Covers more states and hits both coasts.

        Considering his political motivations, I'm going to posit that Mr. Pai contacted ISPs only in the states he mentioned - avoiding the heavily-populated coastal regions and covering large swaths of land in
    • "...held a series of telephone calls with small Internet service providers across the country -- from Oklahoma to Ohio, from Montana to Minnesota..."

      Just FYI, for those without a map handy, that covers 8 out of 50 states, all in the midwest:
      Montana to Minnesota = Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota.
      Oklahoma to Ohio = Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.

      Again...just FYI.

      He is, of course, attempting to be poetic, and thus sound clever, as he lies.

  • Only Hope (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jittles ( 1613415 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @04:37PM (#55727871)
    At this point, the only thing I can hope for is that the RIAA and MPAA start going around suing ISPs after Net Neutrality is abolished. If Net Neutrality doesn't exist then the ISPs are no longer a common carrier under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
    • At this point, the only thing I can hope for is that the RIAA and MPAA start going around suing ISPs after Net Neutrality is abolished. If Net Neutrality doesn't exist then the ISPs are no longer a common carrier under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

      It's a sad day for the internet indeed when our hopes rest on that.

      • At this point, the only thing I can hope for is that the RIAA and MPAA start going around suing ISPs after Net Neutrality is abolished. If Net Neutrality doesn't exist then the ISPs are no longer a common carrier under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

        It's a sad day for the internet indeed when our hopes rest on that.

        And a vain hope. Comcast, the most hated company in America, is owned by NBC Universal. They won't sue their own property. Instead, they will exploit their own property's window into the viewing habits of their subscribers. And of course, extort every last one of them for $29.95 + tax or your Netflix is throttled to 64 kilobits per second.

        And there is fuck all any Comcast subscriber can do about it. What are you going to do, switch to another ISP? There isn't one. Suddenly, cordcutting stops dead in

    • At this point, the only thing I can hope for is that the RIAA and MPAA start going around suing ISPs after Net Neutrality is abolished. If Net Neutrality doesn't exist then the ISPs are no longer a common carrier under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

      Which will be their explanation of why they had no choice but to cut off all these sites and protocols.

  • Google for Brett Glass and Lariat.

  • https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]

    Ajit Pai, as many in this administration, is just trying to co-opt the narrative and build some alternate reality that agrees with his own agenda. It's just sad that some people still listens to their garbage.

Just go with the flow control, roll with the crunches, and, when you get a prompt, type like hell.

Working...