It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Ajit Pai openly questioned what the problem was, saying, “There’s never been a systemic analysis of what the problem with the Internet is. In this order, you see scattered niche examples [Comcast and BitTorrent, Apple and FaceTime, others] all of which were resolved, mind you, through private sector initiatives.” He continued, saying that the FCC’s net neutrality regulatory regime is a solution that won’t work in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.” Essentially, this is, contrary to the assertion of activists and others, a vaguely justified power grab by a government agency.
This conspiratorial and wide-ranging thinking on the part of FCC is not a bug, but rather a feature. O’Rielly openly said that “it’s intended to catch everybody”. Pai noted that the FCC was going to centralize powers over what infrastructure was deployed and where through the use of statutes and other laws; O’Rielly mentioned specifically that the FCC was going to “use Section 201 [of the Communications Act] to do it’s dirty work.”
The consumer will inherit many of these new costs and burdens. O’Rielly outright told the audience that “Rates are going to go up because of this.” The new regulations also fail to recognize the burden of local telecommunications taxes, especially in major cities where tax rates on mobile service are often incredibly high. The new regulations, combined with the laws of local governments, stand to impose even more costs onto consumers.The outlook the two gave was anything but bright–the worries of small government advocates seem justified. The new FCC regulations will, in concert with other laws and under the directive of an organization looking for future problems rather than current problems, give more power to government, more restrictions to innovators, and more costs to the people.
Commissioner Pai summed it up best: “This issue has been largely fact-free for the better part of a decade, and I think it’s frankly shocking that decision-making on something as important as this has been thrown by the wayside in favor of what I consider to be an ideological agenda.” The net may be “neutral” but the FCC is most certainly not.
He continued, saying that the FCC’s net neutrality regulatory regime is a solution that won’t work in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.”
originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: jtrenthacker
I couldn't agree more.
Now, let me get my tinfoil hat....
Perhaps as the Internet is a DARPA invention and tool...their intent was to let it go mainstream and become ubiquitous with the mainstream, their intent was to get us hooked and then waltz back in and take a higher level of control once we'd become inseparably addicted.
Just like a crack dealer will often give something for free, knowing that then they will have a buyer for life...
originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
What was wrong with what the internet was before?
"the FCC’s net neutrality regulatory regime is a solution that won’t work in search of a problem that doesn’t exist."
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
The telecoms have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to self-regulate.
I'm no fan of either option, but the classifying the internet as a utility seems to me to be the best of two bad options.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I'd have to argue that giving private businesses the right to do what they want with their products should always trump government interference
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
people start parroting the corporate propaganda.
I agree there's no right to internet access. But ISPs are treating the internet like it belongs to them, which is not the case. More accurately, most of the internet backbone's infrastructure belongs to companies like Level 3, which I have not seen put a dog in the fight yet. (Though I could be wrong). The infrastructure the ISPs own are from the backbone to the End User.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
The telecoms have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to self-regulate.
I'm no fan of either option, but the classifying the internet as a utility seems to me to be the best of two bad options.
I'd have to argue that giving private businesses the right to do what they want with their products should always trump government interference, except in those cases when they impede on the rights of others. There is no right to internet access, let alone fast internet access.
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
I agree there's no right to internet access. But ISPs are treating the internet like it belongs to them, which is not the case. More accurately, most of the internet backbone's infrastructure belongs to companies like Level 3, which I have not seen put a dog in the fight yet. (Though I could be wrong). The infrastructure the ISPs own are from the backbone to the End User.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
The telecoms have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to self-regulate.
I'm no fan of either option, but the classifying the internet as a utility seems to me to be the best of two bad options.
I'd have to argue that giving private businesses the right to do what they want with their products should always trump government interference, except in those cases when they impede on the rights of others. There is no right to internet access, let alone fast internet access.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: jtrenthacker
Doesn't it suck that the FCC won't let me be, or let me be me, so let me see...
But seriously, everything is a power grab these days. If anyone thinks that anything that has happened in the last 14 years or so is in the interest of the average citizen or in the spirit of more freedom is insane.