Ajit Pai Thanks Congress For Helping Him Kill Net Neutrality Rules (arstechnica.com) 215
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai today thanked Congress for preventing the U.S. government from enforcing net neutrality rules. "The Pai-led Federal Communications Commission repealed Obama-era net neutrality rules, but the repeal could have been reversed by Congress if it acted before the end of its session," reports Ars Technica. "Democrats won a vote to reverse the repeal in the Senate but weren't able to get enough votes in the House of Representatives before time ran out." From the report: "I'm pleased that a strong bipartisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives declined to reinstate heavy-handed Internet regulation," Pai said in a statement marking the deadline passage today. Pai claimed that broadband speed improvements and new fiber deployments in 2018 occurred because of his net neutrality repeal -- although speeds and fiber deployment also went in the right direction while net neutrality rules were in place. "Over the past year, the Internet has remained free and open," Pai said, adding that "the FCC's light-touch approach is working." Pai didn't mention a recent case in which CenturyLink temporarily blocked its customers' Internet access in order to show an ad or a recent research report accusing Sprint of throttling Skype (which Sprint denies).
Thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
free and open (Score:5, Insightful)
fuck you pai, and the congress you rode in on
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, fucking congress... Damn people just appeared out of thin air and took over, while everybody sat and watched, and cheered!
Re: (Score:1)
In DC, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Does anyone know of a website like Slashdot but without all the whiny little bitches? Seriously, where are the people that enjoy life and actually thrive? People that are grateful for what they have and see each day as a gift. WHERE ARE THEY?
You're clicking an article about politics and net neutrality expecting those?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:let's not forget (Score:4, Informative)
Lets also not forget the entire story. Obama was required to nominate someone the republicans would accept due to the FCC commissioners having to have a 3:2 split.
Re: (Score:1)
I only use the internet for speed tests though.
Re: (Score:2)
My torrent speeds have increased too.. dont use public torrent sites and use full stream encryption. Or else dont complain that you can't break the law fast enough.
Is there some reason (Score:2)
they can't try again when the Democrats take over the house?
Re:Is there some reason (Score:4, Informative)
And do what? Create a resolution which will die in the Senate? Hell, the last time the Senate voted on a related resolution they were opposed to NN: https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
The vote was 52-47 in the senate.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Granted it would be easier in the house and harder in the senate next time around.
Re: (Score:3)
It would have to be phrased slightly differently. Prior to now, Congress could pass an "LOL, No" bill in response to Pei's specific decision, just undoing it (the timelimit on an LOL, No bill just expired). This would have to be a longer bill, that fully explained what Pei the FCC had to do. It would probably also either be screwable with by Pei, or be so firm that the FCC couldn't adapt it in the future when the invariable loophole was found. Also, because it was a new rule, not an LOL, No bill, there'
Re: (Score:2)
Living up to your user name there, Bubba.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading and spelling are not the same skill. Thanks for point out my error.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, that makes sense. Thanks.
Only Tell Me When He Is In Jail! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's only a criminal offense for second-class citizens like you and me.
People like Pai are not held to such standards.
Don't hold your breath about him going to jail....I am being completely serious.
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well that's just not true. The IRS would ask for their cut.
GOP (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason we have cable monopolies is because local governments awarded monopoly service contracts. Usually they granted the monopoly in exchange for coverage guarantees - to insure that low-income areas weren't excluded from cable and Internet ser
Re:GOP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Network service, just like electricity, water or gas distribution, has very high installation costs and marginal maintenance costs. This means that it tends to consolidate into natural monopolies, where the winner takes all even in absence of the regulation that you decry.
If you want a competitive market, you need to have regulation. This works quite well in Europe, where cities do not have any competence in market regulation. It it done at the highest level, on a "federal" scale, which is harder to corrupt
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They did the same thing for telephone. But you're badly mistaken if you believe that removing monopolies will result in competition. Countless towns have tried that over the years, and essentially 100% of the time, they were back to a monopoly within about
Natural Monopolies (Score:2)
The reason we have cable monopolies is because local governments awarded monopoly service contracts.
That's part of the reason but only a part. A bigger reason is simply that it is economically inefficient for networks to be small - literally network effects. Last mile ISPs are a classic example of a natural monopoly [wikipedia.org].
You identified part of the problem which is the last mile monopoly/oligopoly. This could be ameliorated by prohibiting companies that deal in content from also owning the lines (or towers) to deliver that content. Then there is minimal conflict of interest and no real reason to charge Netf
can't see the article through the ad (Score:1)
Its really hard to read the top article due to the ad that takes 30% of the screen and blocks the ad.
Scroll you say... well the article scrolls under the ad
Congress should make net neutrality law (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress should make net neutrality law of the land. It's insane that the FCC (an unelected body) had the authority for something like that to begin with.
Re: (Score:1)
To ensure that these appointed people aren't rogues who will go off-script, there will need to be some sort of nomination and confirmation process... Where Ajit Pai will tell congress that
Re: (Score:2)
It's insane that the FCC (an unelected body) had the authority for something like that to begin with.
You're making Pai's point. Congress should be the one who determines the extent to which ISPs should be regulated - not the FCC. Arguably, Congress already weighed in on this with the 1996 Telecommunications Act when it left broadband ISPs out of the category of "common carrier" (i.e. Title II) and subject to neutrality regulation. It was only in 2008 that the FCC, acting on its own, muscled in and told Comcast to stop throttling traffic. Comcast sued the FCC and won under the premise that the FCC did not h
Re:Congress should make net neutrality law (Score:5, Interesting)
The actual result was 35.8%. The previous year it was 22%. The interesting aspect of that is it's based upon speed results by a company that measures speed tests. That alone makes it biased since people who upgrade their connection are more likely to run a speedtest vs those who don't upgrade to not running said test. Of course people who are new to broadband will also be more likely to run a speedtest, but the number of people new to broadband may not be increasing rapidly. Finally, speedtests are precisely the sort of thing that net neutrality rules would be designed to prevent being gamed by granting them higher priority to create the appearance of improved performance vs actual average performance.
In short, I'd like to see a more systematic measure of speed from a variety of metrics that in aggregate could be used to measure actual broadband penetration, speed, etc. It's not enough to read a news article linking to one website's numbers and accept it as fact any more than I'd trust Steam statistics as fact.
Re:Congress should make net neutrality law (Score:5, Informative)
Speeds to speed test servers are increasing faster after NN is overturned, but those have little relation to actual Internet speeds. They represent best-case speed, rather than typical speed, because no ISP would be stupid enough to throttle connections to a speed test server. But actual average speeds may or may not be increasing any faster than they were before.
Also, by focusing on average speed, you're missing the whole point of net neutrality. It isn't about the average. It's about the worst case. It's about ensuring that ISPs aren't extorting companies who aren't their customers, about ensuring that ISPs don't artificially degrade performance on specific services like video-on-demand or VoIP to drive customers to their own competing services, and so on. That can't be measured using average bandwidth. At all.
To use a car analogy, saying that average Internet speeds increased after the repeal of NN is roughly like saying speed limits increased after overturning a law that prevents illegal speed traps.
Re: (Score:2)
They represent best-case speed, rather than typical speed, because no ISP would be stupid enough to throttle connections to a speed test server.
Unless it's fast.com, because it hits the same servers as netflix video. That at least tells you if they're throttling netflix (mine does.)
Re: (Score:3)
" If you can bend the rules to insure a more moral outcome"
This is what is called using fuzzy logic to justify whatever outcome you choose. Your morals do not match other peoples morals. If you swear to follow the Constitution and then spend time bending it, then you are obviously intentionally breaching your oath and intentionally betraying The People. The moment you start down this path you are corrupt.
The proper process is to uphold that constitution and seek to legally amend the document to match yo
Re: (Score:1)
" If you swear to follow the Constitution and then spend time bending it, then you are obviously intentionally breaching your oath and intentionally betraying The People. The moment you start down this path you are corrupt."
That's hyperbolic nonsense. If congress betrays the people and passes an immoral and unjust law the people don't want, it is not a betrayal of the people nor is it corrupt to ignore it.
And THAT is the problem here: Things are already bent out of shape and massively corrupt. That's our st
Re: (Score:3)
It is hard to discuss things like this with folks like you because you are so full of fallacies and ignorance it hurts. The time it takes to point them all out are more than I care to tackle so I will only go after the most glaring. To be honest you practically need an entire day of introduction to basic logic and how to avoid holding contrary values.
"If congress betrays the people and passes an immoral and unjust law the people don't want, it is not a betrayal of the people nor is it corrupt to ignore it
Re: (Score:2)
"If congress betrays the people and passes an immoral and unjust law the people don't want, it is not a betrayal of the people nor is it corrupt to ignore it."
This is a strawman fallacy. "The Law" and the "Consitution" are very different things
The constitution is what gave congress authority to create the law. They are following the constitution as written. There is no strawman.
Just because YOU don't like a law they pass does not mean they betrayed anyone
To clarify: I'm talking laws that the majority don't support. This isn't about ME. That's an incorrect assumption you are making.
This is the REAL show of your ignorance and how contradictory and ignorant you are. Which is is? Where they duly passed or are they betraying you? If as you said "massively corrupt" then it is not possible for them to also be "in many cases...duly passed' So you either do not know what duly means or you are clearly not capable of keeping your own view points of of conflict with each other!
There is no contradiction. They were passed according to the rules. But the people didn't actually want them.
that's what voting is for... if you and the rest of your fellow voters are as ignorant as you, then THAT is why you think there is no solution.
Voting isn't a solution. Because there are only two major parties and in your own words...
EVERYTHING IS TRIBAL!! It is human nature,
So how does simply 'voting' get us to a solutio
Don't thank Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
I know folks don't like partisanship, but there are partisan issues and NN is one of them. Had Trump lost the election we wouldn't be reading this story today. Had the Democrats taken the Senate & House by a wide enough majority to override vetos we would be reading about the upcoming vote to restore NN. These aren't debatable points, they're just facts. Cold, hard facts.
We've got another election in about 2 years. Show up at your primary. The Dems have a wing [justicedemocrats.com] that refuses corporate PAC money. If Net Neutrality matters to you then you know what to do.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
RTFS. A couple of them are listed there.
Net Nuetrality hasn't been replealed yet (Score:5, Insightful)
a. Price increases. ISP will leverage their control of the pipes to charge us more for services like on demand video.
b. Censorship. Again, ISP no longer have to treat all packets equally. That means if they don't like the Alt-Right (or the left) they can ban them.
c. No innovation. Small players won't even be able to get started because they won't be able to afford the bandwidth fees.
d. No more ala cart streaming services. No More cord cutting. It's only NN that made these possible. Say goodbye to Netflix, Crunchyroll and Youtube. Even the big guys won't be able to compete when the ISPs can charge them but not you. Same thing happened with Microsoft. Nobody could compete with them because they could leverage their defacto monopoly.
If I may digress for a moment longer: This is a constant thing I hear on the right and I'm fucking sick of it. To wit:
"We don't need this regulation to stop a bad thing because the bad thing is not happening".
It's like saying Murder can be legal because nobody I know got murdered this week. It's nonsensical and in any other aspect of life folks would call it out as bullshit. But there's a multi million dollar propaganda machine trying to get folks to distrust and hate regulation in general so the rich and powerful can splay us open and gut us like fish. And we're bloody god damned letting it happen.
Re: (Score:2)
b. Censorship. Again, ISP no longer have to treat all packets equally. That means if they don't like the Alt-Right (or the left) they can ban them.
So in other words, what's already happening (in only one political direction though) but at the packet layer.
Should save you guys some work; now you won't have to do it at the domain registrar, payment processors, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is competition not the answer and how will NN promote competition?
Do you have any evidence that A, B, C, D and will happen when before these rules came to be none of those things were true?
The murder is thing is ridiculous and you know it. Even if the worst examples that advocates of NN claim come true, it would still not be in the same realm of murder. I can't take you or the issue seriously if you cannot act like an adult. Screeching about murder in the same discussion makes it seem like you are a chi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the best you got AC? Because the truth is Internet speeds are up and something called competition is greatly responsible for that!
Re: (Score:1)
What competition?
I can't use my cell phone for all the computers in my home to get online, so that's not competition. I have 2 choices where I live, slow DSL from the phone company or fast cable connectivity with a cap based on some arbitrary number. Neither is the best option, and fiber will likely never be available where I'm at due to it being a rural area without thousands of people to sign up to it.
Until ALL lines are available to ALL providers without lease requirements from the incumbents who can dro
Re: (Score:1)
Let put this another way. Bad people exist, that is a
Re: (Score:1)
Competition? Please. If there were competition, the CenturyLink screw up would have been limited to the LAN in their office.
Re: (Score:1)
Most gas stations probably aren't going to short you at the pump, but isn't it nice knowing that there are rules in place to prevent them from doing so/punish them if they do?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Don't thank Congress (Score:2)
As a result, you could say I've actually seen a decrease in internet speeds, not an increase. 5mbps to 0.
I don't get celullar service worth squat to use a hotspot. Cable, DSL, and Fiber are not available in my area, and satellite has ridiculous caps on data, such as 10GB per month.
Guess I'm on the wrong side of the cow pasture... "Big City" is just down the road on the other side of that cow pas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"thank the GOP. There have been a few votes to save Net Neutrality and they were lost along party lines (a few GOPers did break ranks but it wasn't enough).
I know folks don't like partisanship, but there are partisan issues and NN is one of them. Had Trump lost the election we wouldn't be reading this story today. Had the Democrats taken the Senate & House by a wide enough majority to override vetos we would be reading about the upcoming vote to restore NN. These aren't debatable points, they're just fa
Millennials will change things (Score:2)
The right wing stay in power by exploiting people's natural conservative natures (e.g. the genuine fear of change). This works because people have something to lose and that lack a sense of entitlement. The Millennials have nothing to lose and they're at least a bit entitled (the media likes to portray them as entitled brats, this i
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I know folks don't like partisanship,
{checks site logo to make sure I'm on /., spews coffee}
Re: (Score:1)
job security (Score:5, Interesting)
he was really thanking congress for helping him secure an extremely high paying job for when he leaves government service.
Re: (Score:1)
Muni broadband fails in most areas because states have granted monopolies to the telco's and cable companies. The only reason the fiber behind my house isn't lit is because the telco for the area said they'd sue if it was. It doesn't matter that the Public Utilities District owns the lines, it's because it would provide the service that the state granted to the telco/cable company. There was a big deal when cable started allowing two-way communications over it's network in the late 90's because the telcos b
Re: (Score:1)
why hasn't municipal owned fiber optic networks seen more success?
One word: Litigation
Hero thanks world for helping him kill Ajit Pai (Score:1)
Future headline I'd love to see!
Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED! (Score:1)
Every time I see these 'net neutrality' things all I can think about is Idiocracy and the 'its got electrolytes' bit, and the NN version of the same is 'muh bandwidth wuz stranglified'.
Competition in a zero sum environment:
The total bandwidth available is not short time frame elastic, its completely static. So an example for sake of argument under the imposed 'bad' NN rules the 'muh bandwidth wuz stranglified' people keep pushing for:
Netflix in North America uses 50%(whatever the real number is doesn't mat
Re: (Score:3)
Every time I see these 'net neutrality' things all I can think about is Idiocracy and the 'its got electrolytes' bit, and the NN version of the same is 'muh bandwidth wuz stranglified'.
Competition in a zero sum environment:
The total bandwidth available is not short time frame elastic, its completely static. So an example for sake of argument under the imposed 'bad' NN rules the 'muh bandwidth wuz stranglified' people keep pushing for: Netflix in North America uses 50%(whatever the real number is doesn't matter) of available bandwidth and pays the same as everyone else under that rule, ISP/trunking/peering companies are unable to charge them more by the imposed rules. Along comes SUPERNetflix with double goodness and 4X the bandwidth use which everyone starts using because double is mo gooderer, and now they use say 99% of the available bandwidth and the same ISP/trunking/peering companies (yes these numbers are exaggerated) are unable to charge more or negotiate a throttling plan due to the imposed rules.
The net result is all internet traffic is essentially throttled down to a max of 1% and the ISP is handcuffed, unable to charge for fair use, or throttle in the best interest of its customers.
Actually, you're wrong on pretty much every count here. For any sufficiently large ISP, Netflix will *give* the ISP a caching box for their data center that will take the vast majority of Netflix traffic entirely off of the upstream pipes. The only cost to them, other than the electricity to power the box and the cost of square footage to house it, is the cost of upgrading the infrastructure from the central office to the customer, which is usually a matter of upgrading the equipment at both ends. And gi
Re: (Score:2)
The only cost to them, other than the electricity to power the box and the cost of square footage to house it, is the cost of upgrading the infrastructure from the central office to the customer, which is usually a matter of upgrading the equipment at both ends.
An ISP should pay Netflix's rack-space and electricity bill because ???
Netflix should decide when and where an ISP upgrade its infrastructure because ???
Meanwhile, your solution seems to be the government force ISP's to eat those costs because Netflix and Comcast are fighting.
Netflix throttled it's customers and blamed ISPs and from your comment it's apparent why. They want free rack-space, free electricity and the ability to decide an ISP upgrade rollout forced by the government.
Re: Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED! (Score:3)
The ISP doesnâ(TM)t connect directly to Netflix and has no financial arrangement with Netflix. The ISP pays their backbone provider for the unbalanced data coming into the ISPâ(TM)s network. Netflix offered free caching servers so the ISPs could reduce their bandwidth on the backbone and peering agreements, directly reducing their costs. Why wouldnâ(TM)t they take it? Oh, right, because online video services are a threat to the legacy cable TV goose that is reaching menopause and no longer la
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix offered free caching servers
Which require rack-space and electricity. Do those costs offset the bandwidth savings? If an ISP gives such favorable treatment to Netflix do they have to give the same treatment to any streaming service/information service provider? Is the ISP liable for colluding with Netflix against a Netflix competitor if they don't offer the same "free" services?
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with bandwidth, and everything to do with the total amount of traffic on a network (bandwidth is simultaneous capacity, not total volume over a period, which is how all the peering agreements are structured).
Yes, the lopsided peering agreements cost the ISPs far far more than the electricity costs for a couple of rack mounted boxes. Consumer ISPs generally have much more download traffic than upload traffic, and so they end up paying the backbone providers rather than the other way ar
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the lopsided peering agreements cost the ISPs far far more than the electricity costs for a couple of rack mounted boxes.
Would those agreements still be made if streaming services, like Netflix, didn't exist? If so then it is a moot point. But that is hardly the entire issue. How many other streaming/information services does the ISP have to house? Why is Netflix able to dictate the business of a different company? A couple here a couple there add up quickly. Besides, just because it is cost effective doesn't mean that an ISP has to do whatever Netflix demands.
How is it "favorable treatment" on the ISP's side to reduce the ISP's costs? The ISP didn't initiate it, and the ISP isn't the one making the offer, Netflix is.
Doesn't matter who made the offer. Netflix is colluding with an IS
Re: (Score:2)
The agreements would exist, but the total traffic (and thus, the total cost of those agreements) would be much, much less.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
As far as I'm aware, the only throttling Netflix has ever done has been in the form of providing lower-bitrate streams to pay-by-the-byte cellular customers, and they have never blamed the ISPs for this money-saving feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is how traffic is and always has been metered between networks.
None. Netflix traffic constitutes much of the ISP's usage, so Netflix offered a way for the ISP to reduce their costs. Netflix received no direct benefit here other than improved customer satisfaction from better latency. ISPs setup similar arrange
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix offered free caching servers
Which require rack-space and electricity. Do those costs offset the bandwidth savings?
For an ISP the size of Comcast and a content provide the size of Netflix, it is cheaper by nearly four orders of magnitude. Netflix actually publishes information about their caching servers online, though I can't find the power specifications, so I can only take a rough guess based on the typical power consumption of blade servers in that form factor.
I would not expect a 2U rack unit to draw much more than 1 kW of power, which at 8 cents per kWH costs about $700 per year to keep it powered. Each box can
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you do not understand. The speeds quoted at the ISP side barely matter beyond a certain point, no doubt most of the time they are able to deliver that rate for their local connection as advertised, but to suggest that getting that advertised packet rate everywhere on the internet is completely ignorant of how the thing works.
You will not get your 'rated' bandwidth pretty much anywhere but very local to you say within a hop or 3, every hop away adds more latency and all packet speeds are determined
Re: (Score:2)
A few key points should explain it:
Re: (Score:2)
Again, it seems that you are saying that Netflix can dictate the business of an ISP to be favorable to Netflix hidden behind the "customers either care enough to demand that the ISP improve its bandwidth or they don't.". As I have asked below:
How many other streaming services/information service providers does the ISP have to accommodate with free rack-space and electricity? Netflix is colluding with an ISP for better market dominance. If a competitor to Netflix requested the same thing, does the ISP have t
Re: (Score:3)
So an example for sake of argument under the imposed 'bad' NN rules the 'muh bandwidth wuz stranglified' people keep pushing for:
Netflix in North America uses 50%(whatever the real number is doesn't matter) of available bandwidth and pays the same as everyone else under that rule, ISP/trunking/peering companies are unable to charge them more by the imposed rules.
The problem with this statement is that Netflix doesn't pay "the same as everyone else under that rule". They pay a hell of a lot more than I do for Internet access. If Netflix somehow managed to use 99% of the Internet bandwidth that means that 99% of the traffic requests on the Internet are coming from people who wanting Netfix content. Those people are paying their ISP for that requested traffic.
ISPs asking Netflix to pay so they aren't throttled won't make any difference to those 99% requesting Netflix
Re: (Score:1)
With less NN rules (Score:2)
No longer will monopoly telcos get to use federal NN rules to keep out new innovative internet services.
From Anecdotes to Imaginations (Score:1)
When a government transitions the selection of valid measurements of the effectiveness of its policies from statistical to anecdotes over to imagined feel-good stories, it becomes a feel-good government for the people to feel good about themselves, but ceases being a government that is capable of acting on the benefit of the people.
Ha! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The flaw in your comment is that it treats the entirety of the USA as one entity when it comes to internet speeds.
I have multiple gigabit fiber providers available to me and pay $70/month for a low latency symmetrical gigabit link to my suburban house at the edge of the city. Other people in some rural areas only have DSL or satellite Internet. Other people in cities are more like me, but there are a few cities where legal restrictions cause some people to be stuck virtually at dial-up.
Lots of different Sta
Re: (Score:2)
That's a list of ISPs which provide service in some part of Norway. It doesn't say anything at all about the specific availability in the locale of Nervei, Norway.
No he didn't (Score:2)
CC Chairman Ajit Pai today thanked Congress for preventing the U.S. government from enforcing net neutrality rules.
No he didn't. That's a ludicrous way of putting it.
Congress didn't "prevent the U.S. government from enforcing net neutrality rules".
Congress was under no obligation to pass a law implementing some past president's policy preferences.
"Criminal Thanks Other Criminals For Help" (Score:3)
Fixed that headline for ya.