Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, December 14, 2017

We're getting closer and closer to a crisis point on net neutrality, as current FCC chairman Ajit Pai wages a minor internet culture war to convince people to support his plans for a "free internet" -- i.e., one where Obama-era protections don't exist to stop service providers from charging different amounts of money to stream different kinds of content. Having already tussled with Ron Swanson, Pai has now resorted to a time-honored internet tradition: openly mocking his critics, via a video he recently uploaded at conservative site The Daily Caller, in which he pantomimes "all the things" we'll still be able to do after he guts these regulations for sport.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"I stand with the American people!"

- Donny Dotard.

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-14 08:39 AM | Reply

Ajit Pai is a sold out piece of crap, everyone knows it, but we let him serve as chair of the FCC anyway. Americans should be ashamed of themselves.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-14 09:01 AM | Reply

I sure hope the usual's here are appreciative, this time.

this is exactly what they said they wanted for several years now.

#3 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-12-14 11:44 AM | Reply

Ajit Madrawrz. Wasnt he one of the 911 Hijackers?

#4 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2017-12-14 11:57 AM | Reply

"Ajit Pai is a"

---.

#5 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-14 01:04 PM | Reply

Why does it seem like the entire GOP is in competition to see who can be the biggest POS douchebag??

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-14 01:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

One word, clown

OBAMA

#7 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-12-14 01:15 PM | Reply

#6 - It's as if every douche bag you knew in high school got elected to office for the republican party.

#8 | Posted by schmanch at 2017-12-14 02:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It seemed to me that Net Neutrality was a solution to a nonexistent problem and it came at some cost to the internet. All of the problems it purported to fix are just as easily addressed by existing anti-trust laws.

If you truly want Net Neutrality, pass a damn law. This governance by bureaucracy has got to end.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-14 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It seemed to me that Net Neutrality was a solution to a nonexistent problem and it came at some cost to the internet. All of the problems it purported to fix are just as easily addressed by existing anti-trust laws.

If you truly want Net Neutrality, pass a damn law. This governance by bureaucracy has got to end.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-14 02:39 PM | Reply

Actually you're full of caca. Net Neutrality made it a public utility IE a right instead of privilege oh and you don't need to pass a God damned law. That's your lame answer to everything. They didn't need congress. Just like your God damned hatred for the EPA. Same lame crap same bat channel.

#10 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-14 02:51 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"It seemed to me that Net Neutrality was a solution to a nonexistent problem..." - #9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-14 02:39 PM

A "nonexistent problem" going back almost 30 years now.

#11 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-14 02:52 PM | Reply

"It seemed to me that Net Neutrality was a solution to a nonexistent problem and it came at some cost to the internet."

The concept of Net Neutrality was built into the internet long before the FCC had anything to do with it. Can you point to how adopting it as a policy in any way "came at some cost to the internet"? I doubt it.

#12 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-14 02:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

you don't need to pass a God damned law. That's your lame answer to everything. They didn't need congress.

Apparently they did given it's being undone in the same manner it was foisted upon us in the first place. Passing a law ensures it can't be undone so easily (see: Obamacare repeal).

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-14 03:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Apparently they did given it's being undone in the same manner it was foisted upon us in the first place. Passing a law ensures it can't be undone so easily (see: Obamacare repeal).

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-14 03:30 PM | Reply

Courts are going to reinstate net neutrality and you can then cry in your beer.

#14 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-14 03:32 PM | Reply

Courts are going to reinstate net neutrality and you can then cry in your beer.

#14 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

How do you figure? It's being undone by the same process that put it into place.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-14 03:46 PM | Reply

How do you figure? It's being undone by the same process that put it into place.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-14 03:46 PM | Reply

Because it's too valuable to the average consumer. Hence the reason it will be restored.

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-14 03:48 PM | Reply

www.nytimes.com

Allowing such censorship is anathema to the internet's (and America's) founding spirit. And by going this far, the F.C.C. may also have overplayed its legal hand. So drastic is the reversal of policy (if, as expected, the commission approves Mr. Pai's proposal next month), and so weak is the evidence to support the change, that it seems destined to be struck down in court.

The problem for Mr. Pai is that government agencies are not free to abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason, such as a change in factual circumstances. A mere change in F.C.C. ideology isn't enough. As the Supreme Court has said, a federal agency must "examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action." Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures, the justification for killing them would have to be very strong.

It isn't. In fact, it's very weak. From what we know so far, Mr. Pai's rationale for eliminating the rules is that cable and phone companies, despite years of healthy profit, need to earn even more money than they already do -- that is, that the current rates of return do not yield adequate investment incentives. More specifically, Mr. Pai claims that industry investments have gone down since 2015, the year the Obama administration last strengthened the net neutrality rules.

#17 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-14 03:59 PM | Reply

How do you figure? It's being undone by the same process that put it into place.
Posted by JeffJ

Because the Supreme Court has said you can't do a 180 on a regulation without a very good reason...

And there isn't one. Even financially for the telecoms, this profits aren't a large enough reason.

#18 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-14 04:11 PM | Reply

Why strong Net Neutrality regulations matter (from /u/Khaldara):

"MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation's largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada's second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such "over-the-top" voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream's own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon's court challenge against the FCC's 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency's authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person's search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service's results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

cont'd

#19 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2017-12-14 04:24 PM | Reply

cont'd....

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon's $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers' iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T's own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency's existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: "I'm authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements." Walker's admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

The court struck down the FCC's rules in January 2014 -- and in May FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler opened a public proceeding to consider a new order.

In response millions of people urged the FCC to reclassify broadband providers as common carriers and in February 2015 the agency did just that."

#20 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2017-12-14 04:24 PM | Reply

Because I am old and dumb, I don't understand what Net Neutrality actually is, as a practical matter. When I watch CNN or Fox about it, it seems to add to my confusion. Can somebody explain it to me in simple, objective terms? Thanks.

#21 | Posted by Karabekian at 2017-12-14 11:39 PM | Reply

Because I am old and dumb, I don't understand what Net Neutrality actually is, as a practical matter. When I watch CNN or Fox about it, it seems to add to my confusion. Can somebody explain it to me in simple, objective terms? Thanks.

#21 | POSTED BY KARABEKIAN

The simplest way to understand Net Neutrality is to let porn stars explain it to you ...

www.drudge.com

#22 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-12-15 08:42 AM | Reply

Obama said that your internet provider had to deliver you the internet without getting involved with which part of the internet you choose to view.

Trump says that your internet provider is allowed to sell you portions of the internet at different prices.

Much like cable TV, they will choose to sell you parts of the internet and you can choose which you can afford.

This may lead to politicization of the internet too. They could make conservative parts cheaper and faster. They may be able ban parts of the internet by making them slow enough to be ineffective while hiding behind this law.

#23 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-12-15 08:45 AM | Reply

This may lead to politicization of the internet too. They could make conservative parts cheaper and faster. They may be able ban parts of the internet by making them slow enough to be ineffective while hiding behind this law.

#23 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

We're there already -- that's what this is all about.

#24 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-12-15 08:49 AM | Reply

#21

It has to do with whether or not ISPs can effectively block legal web sites and apps based on their content.

Some people try to claim it's about ISPs being able to charge their customers more based on bandwidth usage, but they're either wrong, lying or repeating lies. ISPs can already charge in a tiered system based on how much bandwidth the user wants, but it has to treat all content equally at those respective speeds.

Web site owners also already pay their own ISPs for the amount of traffic that retrieves data from their sites.

Without Net Neutrality, web site owners and content providers could have to pay not only their own ISP, but also every other ISP to ensure that customers can have access to their site. Regardless of how much they pay for bandwidth, users could be faced with having no access to international web sites, or independent news web sites, or any web sites that the local corporations weren't bribed into pushing on to you, like the mostly worthless cable TV channels that your cable companies offer you.

#25 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-15 09:00 AM | Reply

22, 23, 25 Thanks! That helps.

#26 | Posted by Karabekian at 2017-12-15 10:45 AM | Reply

22, 23, 25 Thanks! That helps.

#26 | POSTED BY KARABEKIAN

Free porn today, free porn tomorrow, free porn FOREVER!

#27 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-12-15 10:59 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort