i seriously can't believe there are sentient humans so misguided that they would argue in favor of dismantling net neutrality. at least people like Pai have a specific financial interest in being evil. at least i can UNDERSTAND that motive. but to look into it, and still somehow decide it's in peoples best interest to do away with Net Neutrality? completely fucking baffled by that stance.

dismantling Net Neutrality unequivocally makes the internet a shittier place for every user.

Not sure if this has been posted but here are the email addresses of the 5 people on the FCC roster. The two women have come out as No votes. If one other is convinced to flip to a No vote it will save Net Neutrality.

AJit Pai is def not going to switch tho. But blow up these inboxes anyways if you feel inclined. Be civil, be concise, and make sure they understand that what they're about to do is harmful to our country!

• Ajit Pai - [email protected]
• Mignon Clyburn - [email protected]
• Michael O'Rielly - [email protected]
• Brendan Carr - [email protected]
• Jessica Rosenworcel - [email protected]

http://gofccyourself.com
Click on "+Express", leave comment.

Like most things in politics/laws - its possible to have good intentions, but still have bad implementations in law. Being against one bill, doesn't mean you are against the topic the bill was trying to address (tho that's the easiest and most common political ad fodder). It's possible to be against an implementation, because it was flawed while still being for the great mission. Alas, this type of "details matter" thinking is shunned in the era of "you are with us, or AGAINST US!!" social campaigning where tag lines and call outs are more important than actual results.

There are significant issues with the 2015 version... which I am against. But it seems like the 'sore losers' are coming back in Round2 and looking to tear EVERYTHING out... which is not good.

Pez, you nailed it. Dismantling Net Neutrality is a disaster.

Also, this:

NN.png

I just "contacted" my representatives... one of which is Cruz... who seems to think Pai is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I look forward to kicking his arse to the curb during his next re-election.

pasted_image (resized).png

I think part of the problem is average consumers don't understand the concept of net neutrality. I show them this graphic to help explain just one impact on them which doesn't include the censorship and other horrible things this will bring to the internet. I find once they start to understand it, they don't support repeal. I hope Ajit Pai gets prosecuted for not following the will of the people. The NY AG has requested documentation from the FCC on the fake comments on the docket that they've found and the FCC hasn't responded yet. Hopefully they get some traction into getting rid of this corruption. I fear by that time it might be too late but we can't give up the fight.

what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.0 (resized).jpg

Portugal went net Neutral, and by piecing out, consumers that use the net with focus, all saw significant cost increases.

One thing is certain, regardless of the official reasons to do so, the end result is higher costs to consumers, to start,
and more revenue to large companies.

Ajit appears to be a Puppet....especially with the Sinclair-Tribune merger as well.

no, you have it backwards. Portugal went anti- Net Neutrality, and it is a disaster for its citizens' access to the internet. I think that's what you meant ... i'm just clarifying, hopefully.

This is what opponents to Net Neutrality, and specifically Ajit Pai, are working towards:

DNGlrABUIAAr9RO (resized).jpg

do not be a sucker. do not support this garbage future.

The sore loser is referring to pai - who was on the losing end in 2015 in the FCC vote... but is now the chairman with a new makeup of the board.

... and you talk about uninformed???

Its what I meant..typed to fast....No fan of Ajit!!

According to that list I would be paying $34.99 per month, I now pay $76 a month. So it looks like I'm now paying for stuff I don't want.

.

I went rogue this thabksgiving and talked to some of my family about why dismantling is bad, and not a partisan issue. It went well enough. I'd recommend others do the same.

While I'm for net neutrality, it does seem worthy of discussion that Netflix uses such a large percentage of traffic. So perhaps while there should be no preferences, speed caps or tiers, massive bandwidth users could be made to contribute something.

And also I don't get why my Rachel Maddow talks pinball thread was deleted while this one seems much more political.

That's just it - they would, by having to pay the ISPs more money to not have their bandwidth throttled. And then NetFlix/Hulu/Whatever has to pay more, guess what.. they're gonna raise their subscription prices, so you pay more.

the ISPs will feed at both ends -- they will charge Netflix for "priority" use of their networks (read: extortion to make their app actually work) and then they will turn around and charge end users (you) an extra fee for access to Netflix. This is on top of your Netflix subscription, by the way.

Net Neutrality says they can't do this because they have to treat all internet traffic equally. Ajit Pai and the GOP want to scrap that concept.

Oh, I know. I was answering his comment about why the higher-bandwidth companies/users don't pay.

Especially with a fascist in charge!

shhh!, thats a bad word for some!

(See Dr. Tim Snyder, Yale, Globes leading scholar, "On Tyranny")

My super right father in law asked me about it, and I used the images in this thread to help explain it to him. It was the first time I'd ever heard him question something this administration was doing and by the end of my explanation he was for neutrality.

The purpose of government IS to regulate, not allow for corporations to run amok. Government is the only entity big enough and powerful enough to put big business in its place in the interest of the citizenry. Government used to be the salvation of the people. Now, corporations own the legislators who control government, and corporate media with corporate sponsors has convinced the masses that corporations are the salvation and government is the problem.

The point people miss when talking about netflix and hulu being large bandwidth users is that you as a consumer have already paid for that bandwidth. It shouldn't matter what you're using it for. It could be facebook or cat videos or hulu. You've already paid for the content delivery. You shouldn't get charged twice which is exactly what this policy will lead to.

Not really. The model has always been about oversubscribed networks. You never have paid for (or were guaranteed) end to end 'bits'. You paid for an access level to your isp network. That network is then peered to others.

The problem is peering used to be about two parties exchanging access for mutual benefit. The shifts in who provides network, how it's sold, how it's consumed, and middle men, has broken the old model.

I don't think isps should be able to block traffic for commercial reasons, but there are legit traffic management reasons to block or shape traffic. Also, a network provider should not have to give "free" access to anyone who shows up at their doorstep. They should be able to scale costs with their peers.

Bits are hyper scalable... but they are not free. If you think they are, build your own isp and let me know how you fare...

My mom asked me to explain what net neutrality was to her while visiting for Thanksgiving. She previously thought that "getting rid of net neutrality meant that they can't charge you more for extra internet data." I asked where she heard that and she said "some guy they had talking about it on the news" to which I responded "was his name Ajit Pai?" Surprise, it was.

that's like putting JPOP on the news to explain the benefits of pinball pre-orders.

Received the following from one of my Representatives:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for net neutrality. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to contact me concerning this important matter, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

Net neutrality rules prohibit Internet service providers (ISPs) from treating different content differently. Without these protections, a given ISP could charge extra to deliver certain data, or even refuse to deliver those data entirely. Such arrangements would disadvantage any group or business that lacked the resources to pay for “fast lane” delivery. As a result, consumers could see reduced access, or no access, to certain content and websites.

Preserving net neutrality is crucial to keeping the Internet an open forum — a place where content providers compete on a level playing field, and where consumers have full control over how they browse the Web.

In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enacted rules that effectively guaranteed net neutrality — a decision then-President Obama strongly supported. Earlier this year, with President Trump’s support, the FCC voted to begin the process of eliminating those Obama-era rules. The public comment period recently closed, but a final action is still in the future.

Please know that I strongly oppose the rollback of net neutrality rules, and will fight to keep existing regulations in place to ensure the Internet remains a free, open, and equal forum.

Again, I genuinely appreciate hearing from you on important issues. It is an honor to represent you, and I hope you will continue to share your opinions with me. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
Sincerely,

A. Donald McEachin
Member of Congress
Virginia's 4th District

I see this hurting consumers via price increases for things like Netflix and hurting businesses that are investing in web content but may have to start paying for access to prospective customers since you could effectively get locked out.

Here's another way to help. Senator Kamala Harris has a petition to sign.

http://go.kamalaharris.org/page/s/ads_petition_171121_net-neutrality

Got a response from a representive in congress. Lamar Smith will not be getting my vote in future elections:

Many thanks for your recent letter on net neutrality. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me.

Since the beginning of the Internet, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) monitored Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to protect user privacy and promote general best practices. This allowed ISPs to invest an estimated $1.5 trillion in building networks and improving service. In 2015, the Obama Administration reclassified the Internet as a public utility in order for the Federal Communications Commission to enact costly rules and regulations on ISPs. To afford and comply with these federal rules, ISPs slowed their investment in service and network expansion. Earlier this year, the FCC reclassified ISPs as “information services,” which returns regulatory authority back to the FTC and encourages ISPs to begin investing again in improved services and expanding networks, which American consumers support.

Be assured I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to monitor this issue.

For more information about federal issues, or to send me an email, please visit the 21st District’s website, http://lamarsmith.house.gov.

It's clear he doesn't get it and is another corporate mouth piece.
ISPs haven't slowed their investment. It's clear he has drank Pai's Koolaid.

Response from one of my Senators:

Thank you for contacting me about net neutrality. I appreciate hearing your views about government and corporate control over the Internet.

Net neutrality refers to the idea that Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cox, or Time Warner Cable, should treat all data on the Internet equally. This includes general principles that owners of the networks should not block content or degrade network performance based on the type of user, content, site, application, or platform.

The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Open Internet Order went into effect in June 2015. The order reclassifies ISPs as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act. This reclassification means that ISPs will be subject to regulations similar to those imposed on public utilities, such as phone companies. The rules forbid paid prioritization (also called internet fast lanes), which would have allowed ISPs and content providers (e.g. Netflix, Amazon) to pay to speed up delivery of streaming video or online gaming services. The order also prohibits ISPs from blocking websites, gives the FCC authority to intervene when large cable companies do not act in the public interest, and includes network management practices that prevent bandwidth throttling (the intentional slowing down of Internet service). In addition to wired lines, mobile data services for smartphones and tablets are subject to the rules.

The FCC is not involved on pricing or engineering decisions made by companies in managing their networks, wireless data caps are still in effect, and broadband providers are not required to increase network speeds. In June 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit announced a decision to uphold the FCC's rule.

Virginians rely on strong net neutrality protections to stream shows, share videos and photos with family and friends, shop online, and run small businesses; therefore, I support a free and open internet guided by strong net neutrality protections.

On January 23rd, 2017, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai assumed the chairmanship of the agency-his term was extended for 5 years in October by a 52-41 Senate vote. I voted against extending his term because Chairman Pai has announced his opposition to the Open Internet Order, alongside other rollbacks that would harm consumers. On May 18th, 2017, the FCC voted 2-1 to reverse the internet's Title II reclassification of 2015 and effectively weaken the FCC's oversight of ISPs. Following a review period, Chairman Pai announced that the FCC will take a final vote in December on whether to implement this plan. Unfortunately, repeal of net neutrality is expected to pass the FCC; however, this decision will be subject to court challenges, and Congress can offer a legislative solution.

Internet policies should protect consumers and serve as an engine of innovation, investment, and growth for our economy. Be assured that I oppose any moves by the Trump Administration or the FCC to reverse the Open Internet Order. I hope Congress can work together on a proposal to preserve internet freedom. Again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Tim Kaine

So now we can talk politics on pinside?

they occasionally make exceptions for super important issues. there are few more important than an administration seeking to destroy the internet as we know it.

Mmmm a cup of hypocrisy.

Ajits public statement 2 days ago should be
enough to see erroneous reasoning.
I understand it could be years before
this happens.
By then, we will be beaten down into
acceptance.
Shame once again, there is no middle ground,
or dialogue as such.

Corporations always win. Follow the money

... but, corporations are just people, right? Just ask the Supreme Court

As always, some things never change around here......

I think that lifting regulations on ISPs will have a negative impact on most people, while ISPs will do pretty well, and their corporate executives will do really well. I guess it depends on which regulations are lifted, but to me it's similar to banking (enabled a financial crisis), energy (prices soared, especially here in California), airlines (flying is more miserable than ever), etc. I hope that in the future, the numbskulls currently in charge of things are replaced with smart, reasonable people.

ask virtually any nerd you know what they think of net neutrality.

Why is this thread still on Pinside? This should have been dumped long ago for the uniformed political crap.

You would think so wouldn't you?

Unlike most issues on the national stage, this one has the potential to directly impact our experience on Pinside. I can't imagine that Pinside generates anywhere near enough revenue to compete with companies like Facebook, Amazon or Netflix if it comes down to it. I agree that the back and forth isn't always helpful. However, most people I talk to don't even know that this conversation is occurring so I do see value in allowing these discussions on here.

I certainly see the value in these discussions as well.