Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Trump appoints Pai to head FCC & beat-down net neutrality

#1
C C Offline
http://www.zdnet.com/article/trump-appoi...eutrality/

EXCERPT: To no one's surprise, President Donald Trump immediately struck at net neutrality. He stuck his blow by appointing long-time net neutrality adversary Ajit Pai as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) [...] Under Trump's FCC, net neutrality is going to get cut.

[...] Net neutrality is a simple idea. It states ISPs shouldn't play favorites with the content that goes over their parts of the internet. [...] Without net neutrality, the internet would have become Balkanized into seperate online services such as AOL, CompuServe, and GEnie in the pre-internet online world. Pai doesn't know his history. In a December 7, 2016 speech, Pai said he plans to "remove outdated and unnecessary regulations [...]" That may sound good, but the reality is that under Pai, with a Republican dominated FCC, ISPs will be able to raise rates on both customers and internet services, such as Netflix video, Pandora audio, and BitTorrent data sharing....
Reply
#2
Ben the Donkey Offline
It's a bit difficult to comment from here, not knowing exactly what sort of packages are available in the USA. From my perspective, though, this tends to read like just another anti-Trump sensationalist opinion piece.

Things are bit different here. I'm not sure exactly what sort of laws are applicable - perhaps because in the real world, you don't really need them. Any attempts to regulate the internet in this sort of fashion don't really lead to lower prices for consumers at all.
In my experience, the lack of this sort of regulation actually makes things a little more cost effective rather than the opposite. 

An example - my ISP offered Netflix as a partner, which in practical terms meant I had to pay for Netflix like anyone else - but it didn't count toward my DL limit with the ISP. So I could change to a cheaper plan with a lower "cap"and watch Netflix without concern. This had nothing to do with offering a better net speed, or whatever, just a simple reshuffling of the technicalities which, in the end, worked out to my benefit, as I'm a bit of a binger at times. To put it simply, I needn't be concerned about falling asleep in front of the TV while Netflix was on and blowing my cap.

To be fair, this meant that Netflix gained a distinct advantage with my ISP's customers because it was the dominant (most popular) steaming service. The other ISP's started following suit, of course, and began offering partnerships with other streaming services. Prices didn't go up - they went, effectively, down.
I don't know of too many who actually changed their ISP to get the cap-free streaming, but I'm sure there were a few out there. I would have myself, if I hadn't already been a customer. Depending on the pricing plans, of course - you'd need to take a few factors into account. I mean if my ISP's prices were higher than the competitions, then I'd need to do the maths.

Competition naturally has a tendency to take care of price fixing. Very few ISP's are  going to jack up prices or change data speeds "because you're streaming with X service in stead of Y" when other ISP's don't, and other ISP's won't because if they don't, they get all the customers who, as I said earlier, won't sit still for it. It mostly regulates itself, in this regard. The ultimate aim is to make money, and you can't do that making life harder for your customers (as long as alternatives are available in the form of competition). 

The net effect of the partnership for me was actually a reduction in costs. Not an increase. So if your net neutrality laws were applicable here, I'd be worse off. 


One of the sub-links provided in that article pointed to another which seemed to be up in arms because Netflix throttled data speeds to customers who were in danger of going over their cap limit. It also said that it didn't do that for some other ISP's because they had what we called "shaping" here - instead of charging for an excess data amount, they simply throttled the download speeds.
Now, this is all presented as some shock-horror-fear sort of thing, but... I have to ask, exactly what is the problem? Netflix preferred shaping plans over excess usage charges.

If a customer had a plan with an ISP charging like a wounded bull if they exceeded a DL limit, Netflix slowed data speeds to help ensure that didn't happen.
If a customer had an ISP which shaped data rather than charging extra, they didn't interfere.
Seems to me like they're the ones on the side of the consumer? I suppose you could make some sort of argument regarding their taking on the responsibility for a customers usage (and therefore their charges) on behalf of an ISP but... you'd be skating on thin ice. 

I'd rather be shaped than charged extra any day. That's exactly why the vast majority of ISP's here in Australia moved to shaping plans years ago - virtually none charge extra any more. Customers deserted them in droves when they tried. 

Without knowing the intricacies of the law itself, it just seems like anti-Trump panic journalism to me. 

The thing is, this type of article promotes the removal of a law as being an indicator that the powers that be (Trump and Pai, in this case) are just facilitating big business making more money. Another "Ohhh, look what the fat cats are doing now!" type of thing. And maybe they are. 
But often, you'll find it's more simply the removal of a regulation which appears to have been a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to something which probably have sorted itself out fairly quickly, once the customers got wind of it. You would have found, in the example in the article, that that particular ISP would have started losing customers hand over fist in a fairly short space of time anyway. There was no real need to band aid it.

And maybe Pai is doing just that - removing an outdated regulation. Like he says. 

So why all the preemptive negative opinions?
Honestly, I'm really getting tired of the end-of-the-world-now that-Trump-is-POTUS bullshit.
Why can't we just have an article of journalism that states that Pai is removing the regulations, with details. 
Maybe then a couple of links to articles from different points of view regarding possible ramifications. 

And let us bloody sort out whether or not Trump is a good POTUS for ourselves, when the dust has settled.
Reply
#3
RainbowUnicorn Offline
(Jan 24, 2017 09:08 PM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: And let us bloody sort out whether or not Trump is a good POTUS for ourselves, when the dust has settled.

do not question him or his actions until he has resigned or been voted out ?

sounds a bit zealoty...
Reply
#4
Zinjanthropos Offline
(Jan 25, 2017 01:09 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote:
(Jan 24, 2017 09:08 PM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: And let us bloody sort out whether or not Trump is a good POTUS for ourselves, when the dust has settled.

do not question him or his actions until he has resigned or been voted out ?

sounds a bit zealoty...

Politics is a field I usually stay away from but I think Ben means it's tough to judge a 4 year term on the basis of a few days on the job. He does say when the dust settles which I take to mean when Trump's done as POTUS. In order to sort something out, there's usually more than one or two items. I don't think B the D means you can't question Trump or his actions.
Reply
#5
RainbowUnicorn Offline
(Jan 25, 2017 01:20 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:
(Jan 25, 2017 01:09 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote:
(Jan 24, 2017 09:08 PM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: And let us bloody sort out whether or not Trump is a good POTUS for ourselves, when the dust has settled.

do not question him or his actions until he has resigned or been voted out ?

sounds a bit zealoty...

Politics is a field I usually stay away from but I think Ben means it's tough to judge a 4 year term on the basis of a few days on the job. He does say when the dust settles which I take to mean when Trump's done as POTUS. In order to sort something out, there's usually more than one or two items. I don't think B the D means you can't question Trump or his actions.
e.g ... should people take their lead by the POTUS(current) birther media campaigne ?
apples with apples ?
do un to others ...
etc etc...
one rule for him another for everyone else ?
thus .. beyond reproach is the question.
the leader that is installed to be beyond reproach and delcared to be beyond question is the one who becomes the mass murdering genocidal maniac.
thats how it has always been in history and all over the world(generally speaking).
hence im asking.
(assuming you know that net neutrality is just another TPP internet construct handing market domination to the monopolys...which the POTUS has clearly said he is opposed to)
but then maybe i am expecting too much logic and sanity from this world of things.
Reply
#6
Ben the Donkey Offline
(Jan 25, 2017 01:20 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:
(Jan 25, 2017 01:09 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote:
(Jan 24, 2017 09:08 PM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: And let us bloody sort out whether or not Trump is a good POTUS for ourselves, when the dust has settled.

do not question him or his actions until he has resigned or been voted out ?

sounds a bit zealoty...

Politics is a field I usually stay away from but I think Ben means it's tough to judge a 4 year term on the basis of a few days on the job. He does say when the dust settles which I take to mean when Trump's done as POTUS. In order to sort something out, there's usually more than one or two items. I don't think B the D means you can't question Trump or his actions.

You're quite right, of course. Apart from it being about politics... it's more about people in general.

I sincerely hope it's apparent to most just how stupid RU's extrapolation really is, but given it's become not only permissible but almost de riguer, I sometimes wonder. 
Of course we can question Trump's actions - I'd expect the same of any president (although one would hazard a guess a president other than Trump would not be "questioned" quite so rigorously... particularly before he's even been sworn in).
I'm not actually a Trump supporter. I read about the abortion information thing a day or two ago and was very concerned. I've yet to enquire further into the details, but it seems to be a serious backward step. 

But I'm not going to publish, read or support bullshit internet articles which gain legs not due to factual content or information, but because it appears you can say and spread pretty much whatever you like... for every voice saying "hang on, is this really how it is" there are a hundred more - RU among them - who will re-post and circulate this sort of thing as fact. With accompanying memes, where possible. 
This has been, and still is, a sustained, merciless assault on a president elect, across the entire world, where "fact" has become... shall we say, somewhat blurry.
The entire internet has become saturated with Trump articles, 80% of which are determined to either paint him as a misogynist, an idiot, or attack everything they think he'll do before he's even done it. I've never seen such a prolonged display of disgusting behaviour, nor have I really ever witnessed such volumes of crap being widely distributed under the banner of truth by a pack of jackals pretending to be knowledgeable. 

We're not talking about questioning someone's actions here, we're talking about a plethora of mainstream and alternative news sites both publishing misleading and fake articles in order to further their own prejudices - and then turn around and accuse the opposition of doing it. I'm becoming very, very bored and frustrated with it all. I can't get factual news anymore, I'm forced to dig for it amongst a veritable mountain of opinion pieces passed off as "alternative news" which are, far too often, demonstrably false.  

There's another one doing the rounds at the moment, and of course the usual suspects have posted the obligatory emotional image (the one I'm thinking of involves a picture of burning books). I may get back to it, I may not, but even a modicum of internet browsing will result in one uncovering an alternative version of events, from which one might gain an impression that this article, and a couple of others like it, might have... shall we say, exaggerated things a little. 

I'm not even going to give them the credit of calling them liars, because to do so would require acting under the assumption that in order for one to lie, one must first know what the truth actually is. I'm quite certain the author of this article believes everything he said, and I'm quite certain RU believes he's really trying to put the truth out there. Of these things, I have little real doubt.
Unfortunately, that only serves to lower my assessment of them even further. 
To whit, one might have a certain amount of respect for the cynical machinations of an Ellsworth Toohey, but few have any for a Peter Keating.

 

My point, in this case, was that's it's demonstrably false to claim that prices will increase if this law is repealed, when the rest of the world is experiencing a different result. 
This article is not only merely opinion, it's not even informed opinion.

RU did not attempt to refute anything I'd said. I'd surmise he didn't even bother to research anything happening in other countries where such laws don't exist. I'd further surmise he barely even read what I said, and still less comprehended what he was being told. 

His first and only reaction was to type in "waddaya mean, we can't question Trump" as if that was the only thing I'd said. And I didn't even say that. 
 
I mean if RU is really all that concerned about the questioning of things, then perhaps he should really start questioning some things.
Like, what he's reading. Or perhaps how he's reading, but unfortunately I'm not sure that sort of thing is easily taught.
Reply
#7
Zinjanthropos Offline
Quote:one rule for him another for everyone else ?
No offence RU, I assume that you have nothing against prejudging people.... 
Quote:the leader that is installed to be beyond reproach and delcared to be beyond question is the one who becomes the mass murdering genocidal maniac.

.....or prejudicial statements? 
If we see you writing in the same manner that you critique The Donald's words for, then how should we take it? Are you being sincere and take offence, or do you acknowledge that you are like him but don't think he should act like you would?
Reply
#8
Syne Offline
Regulation generally harms free market competition, which in turn raises prices. If high usage media service providers are allowed to be charged more by the ISP, for their corresponding drag on bandwidth, only consumers of those services will have the cost passed on to them. This leaves customers who choose to go without such services free to find much cheaper ISPs, since there's independent competition between ISPs in the separate markets of consumers and services. So-called "net-neutrality" basically just seeks to force ISP customers to share the media service provider costs...basically corporate welfare.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Exploding head syndrome is no joke – & neither is sleep paralysis (cleanup community) C C 6 167 Nov 2, 2021 06:37 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Personal online info effects + Texts with "." insincere + Net lessens knowing claims C C 0 446 Dec 9, 2015 06:02 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)