Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai out, net neutrality back
ZDNet ^ | 30.November.2020 | Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Posted on 12/01/2020 7:45:23 AM PST by farming pharmer

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai said he plans to leave the commission on Jan. 20, 2021. This opens the door to President-elect Joe Biden to select a new head of the telecommunications regulator. While best known for wrecking network neutrality, in his resignation letter Pai largely ignored that issue. His only comment relating to it was "this FCC has not shied away from making tough choices. As a result, our nation's communications networks are now faster, stronger, and more widely deployed than ever before."

Few would agree with his rosy view. While according to the FCC's 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, only 22.3%, 21.3 million rural Americans, don't have access to internet download speeds of at least 25 Mbps, which is the recommended speed for working from home and online schooling, the real numbers are much worse. BroadbandNow Research using the FCC's own data found almost twice that number, 42 million, don't have broadband access.

(Excerpt) Read more at zdnet.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: communism; fcc; netneutrality
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last
Admittedly, I don't understand the net-neutrality issue that well, but if it's being constantly pursued by leftists it's a really bad thing.

All hail the Crap-King's third term if Biden is sworn in.
1 posted on 12/01/2020 7:45:23 AM PST by farming pharmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: farming pharmer

Net neutrality simply isn’t. Just as Antifascist is not and the anti-Christian Human Rights Commission is not for equal human rights

Look at Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter.

They don’t want ISPs throttling the bandwidth for their content but they sure as hell will downthrottle YOUR own content and your interaction with your followers.


2 posted on 12/01/2020 7:49:48 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Who built the cages, Joe?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farming pharmer

>Admittedly, I don’t understand the net-neutrality issue that well, but if it’s being constantly pursued by leftists it’s a really bad thing.

Basically providers want to be able to charge large streamers like Netflix for clogging up bandwidth with massive streams of video data. Net Neutrality basically says that data should “be treated equally” and thus not charged extra even though video streamers are many times 60-80% of the provider’s bandwidth.


3 posted on 12/01/2020 7:51:28 AM PST by struggle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farming pharmer
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai said he plans to leave the commission on Jan. 20, 2021.

Typical way Republicans still have no clue about how to deal with government. Under the same circumstances, the RATS always have the outgoing whatever resign before so that the new RAT appointee remains entrenched. That's how we're stuck with them all over the place. I have no problem with Pai leaving, but at least go on January 1 so that the rest of us have a fighting chance because President Trump names his successor.

4 posted on 12/01/2020 7:57:28 AM PST by Dahoser (Not separation of church and state, but of media and state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farming pharmer

Biden is still not President Elect.


5 posted on 12/01/2020 7:57:58 AM PST by DarthVader (Not by speeches & majority decisions will the great issues th the day be decided but by Blood & Iron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farming pharmer

Just go back to some old posts. The doctrine had strong support on FR. Some Freepers were worried that they may not be able to stream unlimited amounts of movies while some others wanted the fed to force social media to carry all content. The was also great confusion as to what was to be “neutral”. Many thought this was simply a reg that applied to the physical infrastructure and IP providers. They missed the point that this was about regulating speech.

They entirely misunderstood the issue. One only needs to understand the Fairness Doctrine to get an idea of Net Neutrality will be applied.


6 posted on 12/01/2020 7:59:19 AM PST by FreedomNotSafety
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farming pharmer

As I understand it net neutrality gives government (and their favored corporate buddies) the ability to ration bandwidth as they see fit.

We all know how that works when government is handing out fairness.


7 posted on 12/01/2020 8:00:19 AM PST by chiller (Davey Crockett said: "Be sure you're right. Then go ahead'. I'm going ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNotSafety

>>while some others wanted the fed to force social media to carry all content.

Social media has a legal liability exemption specifically because they agreed not to censor views. They are acting like a publisher now (and a monopoly) and are in violation of their own agreed operating conditions.


8 posted on 12/01/2020 8:02:12 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Who built the cages, Joe?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: farming pharmer
Admittedly, I don't understand the net-neutrality issue that well

Net neutrality requires internet providers to treat all internet traffic with the same priority. Without net neutrality providers could setup "fast lanes" where some sites load better and faster than others and charge companies for access to those fast lanes. As a practical result this would allow large established companies to have a competitive edge over new, smaller, startup type companies - potentially stifling innovation.

Internet companies don't like net-neutrality because they'd like to make money off of "fast lanes". Large corporations don't like net-neutrality because they would like the advantage a faster site/connection would give them over newer rivals. New companies like net-neutrality because it's a level playing field and they can compete fairly with established corporations based on better product or idea.

For us as consumers? Getting rid of net-neutrality benefits existing power structures - particularly media companies. MSNBC, CNN, Fox News would be able to afford the "fast lane" and stream fast while OANN or Newsmax would be slower and choppier. Netflix and Hulu would be fast while the next new thing would have trouble getting off the ground. If you're happy with the existing media environment, then getting rid of net-neutrality is probably okay. If you're not happy with the existing media environment then net-neutrality offers a greater chance at innovation and change (particularly from non-mainstream places).
9 posted on 12/01/2020 8:03:59 AM PST by Boise3981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dahoser

I’ve read the Prez. typically names the heads of agencies like the FCC, so any replacement would be short lived if Biden succeeds.

.....serve at the pleasure of the President.

.....and that won’t be Biden when all said & done.


10 posted on 12/01/2020 8:04:14 AM PST by chiller (Davey Crockett said: "Be sure you're right. Then go ahead'. I'm going ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: farming pharmer
The fact that rural areas may not have 25mps Internet access hardly seems to me to be a gov't issue. I understand the FCC's role in regulating the Internet in general, but making differential pricing based on geographical area establishes a dangerous precedent.

Rural areas can have such access (e.g., satellite), it simply costs them more. If they felt it was worth it, they'd buy it. Arguing "but the poor children won't be able to do their homework" doesn't cut it either, for the same reason. Indeed, the proportion of children living in rural areas continues to decline, so a blanket "fix" would reach a declining number of people it's suppose to help.

I think our collective goal should be to get the gov't out of our lives, not more into it.

11 posted on 12/01/2020 8:05:12 AM PST by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
They don’t want ISPs throttling the bandwidth for their content but they sure as hell will downthrottle YOUR own content and your interaction with your followers

Net-neutrality requires providers to treat all content equally. Net-neutrality prevents providers from downthrottling your content.

Get rid of net-neutrality and, you're right, some ISPs are going to downthrottle some content. And given the monopoly on high speed internet that exists in most places, you won't be able to do anything about it.
12 posted on 12/01/2020 8:07:35 AM PST by Boise3981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: farming pharmer
There are a number of people who have argued that without net neutrality their ISP could cut off or charge extra for FreeRepublic. But they won't do that for cost since FR's bandwidth is minimal and costs the ISP nothing to carry. They can't do it to censor it like Twitter since they have no actual way to do that.

Click on https://45.79.56.181/tag/*/index and you will get a bunch of pointless warnings which you can bypass and then view FR without your ISP getting in the way. Similarly, you should add 8.8.8.8 or even better a non-google DNS server like one from this list https://www.lifewire.com/free-and-public-dns-servers-2626062 Your ISP can really only block your access by messing with DNS and you should never trust their DNS regardless and always use your own. They can block by messing with the routing tables but that's much more difficult and would ultimately fail. Finally they can block like AOL or China by putting you behind a firewall. But that would be rejected and they would go out of business.

In short, net neutrality is for lazy people who think that the government will protect them from ISP hanky panky. But in the long run the opposite is true, the government and ISPs will collude to limit your internet freedom. The only way around it is to be knowledgeable.

13 posted on 12/01/2020 8:07:46 AM PST by palmer (Democracy Dies Six Ways from Sunday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farming pharmer

I had high hopes, for Ajit.

He’s been a let down, imo.


14 posted on 12/01/2020 8:11:13 AM PST by Jane Long (Praise God, from whom ALL blessings flow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boise3981
Getting rid of net-neutrality benefits existing power structures...

There is no "net neutrality" now. The "fast lanes" don't mean anything except for streaming HD video. You certainly don't need streaming HD to be informed and get non-mainstream viewpoints. Low quality video is completely adequate for that.

15 posted on 12/01/2020 8:11:42 AM PST by palmer (Democracy Dies Six Ways from Sunday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

The have an exemption because they do not produce the content that is posted. However that doesn’t mean they are required to post all content.

Not that it matters because Net Neutrality is about having the government decide what is proper content. That is why leftist support it.


16 posted on 12/01/2020 8:12:20 AM PST by FreedomNotSafety
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNotSafety
They missed the point that this was about regulating speech.

Net-neutrality is specifically NOT about regulating speech. In fact, it prevents providers from promoting one set of content over another.

Net-neutrality requires internet service providers to treat all data the same *regardless of content*. If net-neutrality is in effect a stream from CNN and OANN travel at the same speed.

If net-neutrality doesn't exist then someone (say Comcast) might prioritize data from MSNBC and throttle back data from OANN - thus MSNBC would stream fine and OANN would be choppy and slow.

Net-neutrality requires providers to treat all data the same regardless of content.
17 posted on 12/01/2020 8:13:29 AM PST by Boise3981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chiller
As I understand it net neutrality gives government (and their favored corporate buddies) the ability to ration bandwidth as they see fit.

The exact opposite actually. Net-neutrality requires ISPs to treat all content the same and give everything equal access to bandwidth. Net-neutrality prevents favoritism.

Without net-neutrality ISPs could promote content from one of their favored corporate buddies over another.
18 posted on 12/01/2020 8:15:36 AM PST by Boise3981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Boise3981
The only content that ISPs would ever throttle is HD or 4K. They have no ability to throttle anything else. Just ask the Chinese who get around the Great Firewall. The really amazing thing about net neutrality (as proposed) is that American consumers will be made dumber that Chinese consumers in getting their content.

Instead of advocating knowledgable use of VPNs and other neutrality and privacy enhancing technology, the net neutrality proponents want the government to run the internet. It is dumb and it is dangerous in the long run.

19 posted on 12/01/2020 8:17:06 AM PST by palmer (Democracy Dies Six Ways from Sunday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

Seems we’re gift-wrapping everything and handing it over to the Marxists.


20 posted on 12/01/2020 8:18:19 AM PST by daler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson