Ajit Pai: California's net-neutrality bill is anti-consumer

[pete6032]

https://www.zdnet.com/article/fccs-...e-californias-net-neutrality-bill-is-illegal/

Is anyone buying this garbage?

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Ajit Pai says California's plan to create its own net-neutrality rules is "illegal" and "anti-consumer".

California last month voted to proceed with Senate Bill 822, providing stronger state-wide protections for net neutrality than the Obama-era federal protections that the FCC killed off last year because some Republicans thought they stifled carrier investments in networks.

Pai said the California bill, which is yet to be signed, was "a radical, anti-consumer internet regulation" that would prevent Californian consumers from buying free-data plans.

A hotly contested restriction in the bill prevents ISPs from using 'zero-rating', where a carrier provides select content without it impacting a data plan, which in turn would give the carrier an edge over rival services whose content does use up a plan.

ISPs would be prevented from requiring websites to pay to avoid their data counting against a user's data cap.

The California law also prohibits ISPs from blocking websites, speeding up or slowing down websites or whole classes of applications, such as video.

But in Pai's view, California's law would restrict consumer choice.

"These plans allow consumers to stream video, music, and the like exempt from any data limits. They have proven enormously popular in the marketplace, especially among lower-income Americans," said Pai.

"But nanny-state California legislators apparently want to ban their constituents from having this choice. They have met the enemy, and it is free data."

 

[fskimospy]

Hey look, the guy who disregarded the opinion of the overwhelming majority of consumers in getting rid of net neutrality is suddenly worried about consumers. I'm sure this concern is totally genuine. This is the ISPs reaping what they have sown. They fought tooth and nail for the ability to screw their customers over without federal regulation and now instead they will get a patchwork of regulation from the states.

Womp womp.

 

[deathBOB]

“Consumers must have the choice to be absolutely blasted in the ass by one telecom or absolutely blasted in the ass by another telecom. Anything less is simply anti-capitalist.”

 

[Homerboy]

Hey look, the guy who disregarded the opinion of the overwhelming majority of consumers in getting rid of net neutrality is suddenly worried about consumers. I'm sure this concern is totally genuine. This is the ISPs reaping what they have sown. They fought tooth and nail for the ability to screw their customers over without federal regulation and now instead they will get a patchwork of regulation from the states.

Womp womp.

As an added bonus, I hope each one of those states makes a slightly different rule requiring the ISPs to manage all that bullshit. And I hope each and every rule is tighter than the original net neutrality rules.

 

[sactoking]

Ajit Pai is a douche weasel.

 

[pete6032]

As an added bonus, I hope each one of those states makes a slightly different rule requiring the ISPs to manage all that bullshit. And I hope each and every rule is tighter than the original net neutrality rules.

I'm waiting for my ISP to put a "net neutrality fee" on my bill.

 

[NostaSeronx]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB822

Anyone going to ELI5 and see if Ajit Pai is false or truth?

 

[Commodus]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB822

Anyone going to ELI5 and see if Ajit Pai is false or truth?

Of course Pai is lying. Remember, this is the guy who hasn't even tried to hide that he's acting on Verizon's behalf.

The point of California's bill, and the FCC order before that, was to prevent telecoms from abusing their power to hinder competing internet services by blocking or slowing their traffic. For instance, forcing you to watch Netflix at low resolution so that you're more likely to watch TV or an in-house streaming service.

Zero rating, meanwhile, hurts competition by punishing you for using anything but in-house or preferred services. Let's say your phone carrier offers a live streaming TV service and doesn't count its bandwidth use against your data cap (including soft-capped 'unlimited' data). Sounds great, right? Here's the problem: that also discourages you from watching Netflix, YouTube and other services, since their use still counts toward that cap.

You're not losing choice by forcing companies to treat internet traffic fairly -- that's a ludicrous claim on its face. If anything, it's promoting choice. You don't need the 'right' to block or throttle competing services to offer unlimited data.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Ajit Pai deserves a bullet in the head.

Let's dial it back, shall we.
admin allisolm

 

[UNCjigga]

Ajit Pai deserves to be slapped around a bit with a large wet trout.

FTFY--nothing but the best old-school IRC-style justice for enemies of teh Intarwebs!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Ajit Pai deserves a bullet in the head.

Whoa! Calm down Captain

 

[brycejones]

https://www.zdnet.com/article/fccs-...e-californias-net-neutrality-bill-is-illegal/

Is anyone buying this garbage?

Isn't Legendkiller supposedly working at some cable company on their back bone? It takes that level of stupid to agree with anything that comes out of Ajit Pai's mouth.

 

[darkswordsman17]

https://www.zdnet.com/article/fccs-...e-californias-net-neutrality-bill-is-illegal/

Is anyone buying this garbage?

Comcast, Verizon, AT&T (and I'm sure some others). Literally.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ajit Pai just knows he'll be rolling in really big money when this FCC gig is over. Really big. He'll gladly sell out entirely to get it. Zinke, Pruitt & other Trump appointees have been & are in it for the same reasons.

 

[kage69]

Ajit Pai deserves to be slapped around a bit with a large wet trout

I'll notify John Cleese, because Pai's corrupt, shit-eating grin deserves only the burliest of Atlantic salmon deliveries.

 

[Indus]

https://www.zdnet.com/article/fccs-...e-californias-net-neutrality-bill-is-illegal/

Is anyone buying this garbage?

No.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Of course Pai is lying. Remember, this is the guy who hasn't even tried to hide that he's acting on Verizon's behalf.

The point of California's bill, and the FCC order before that, was to prevent telecoms from abusing their power to hinder competing internet services by blocking or slowing their traffic. For instance, forcing you to watch Netflix at low resolution so that you're more likely to watch TV or an in-house streaming service.

Zero rating, meanwhile, hurts competition by punishing you for using anything but in-house or preferred services. Let's say your phone carrier offers a live streaming TV service and doesn't count its bandwidth use against your data cap (including soft-capped 'unlimited' data). Sounds great, right? Here's the problem: that also discourages you from watching Netflix, YouTube and other services, since their use still counts toward that cap.

You're not losing choice by forcing companies to treat internet traffic fairly -- that's a ludicrous claim on its face. If anything, it's promoting choice. You don't need the 'right' to block or throttle competing services to offer unlimited data.

I agree with everything you're saying - but this reminds me of something else that may be similar.... In your case of talking about data caps, similarly haven't cell phone companies been doing this all along with talking minutes as well? If you're with Verizon/AT&T/Sprint - if you call another person on Verizon/AT&T/Sprint it doesn't count against your minutes. BUT if you call anyone else (Competitor cell phone company, landline, etc.) it does count.

 

[fskimospy]

No.

It is kind of amazing that Pai is simultaneously arguing that the FCC lacks the power to regulate telecoms in this way but that the FCC DOES have the power to prevent anyone else from regulating telecoms in this way. By this logic telecoms are essentially unregulateable by any government agency.

This is what happens when you engage in backwards reasoning like Pai does, he knows the answer he wants - telecoms free from regulation - now he just has to figure out how to get there.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I agree with everything you're saying - but this reminds me of something else that may be similar.... In your case of talking about data caps, similarly haven't cell phone companies been doing this all along with talking minutes as well? If you're with Verizon/AT&T/Sprint - if you call another person on Verizon/AT&T/Sprint it doesn't count against your minutes. BUT if you call anyone else (Competitor cell phone company, landline, etc.) it does count.

On network vs off network. On network calls are very cheap off network calls generate a fee from the other carrier. Similar but not the same idea.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

On network vs off network. On network calls are very cheap off network calls generate a fee from the other carrier. Similar but not the same idea.

Thanks, I guess that's a reasonable excuse since there is a price difference. Obviously with data usage there is no difference in price.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree with everything you're saying - but this reminds me of something else that may be similar.... In your case of talking about data caps, similarly haven't cell phone companies been doing this all along with talking minutes as well? If you're with Verizon/AT&T/Sprint - if you call another person on Verizon/AT&T/Sprint it doesn't count against your minutes. BUT if you call anyone else (Competitor cell phone company, landline, etc.) it does count.

For data at least under Obama the FCC allowed old plans to be grandfathered in but new plans were going to have to comply with the prohibition on zero rating. I'm not aware of any ban on data caps, evil though they are (for landline connections especially).

 

[BurnItDwn]

The only "consumers" Ajit cares about are ATT, Verizon, comcast, and possibly Sprint and Tmobile.

 

[Commodus]

I agree with everything you're saying - but this reminds me of something else that may be similar.... In your case of talking about data caps, similarly haven't cell phone companies been doing this all along with talking minutes as well? If you're with Verizon/AT&T/Sprint - if you call another person on Verizon/AT&T/Sprint it doesn't count against your minutes. BUT if you call anyone else (Competitor cell phone company, landline, etc.) it does count.

To a degree that was true, but it was also addressed before the FCC really needed to step in. We're now at a point where you can assume virtually every plan has unlimited calling inside the US. There's also no real "soft cap" for calling like there is for data (i.e. they're not about to delay your calls just because you've spent a lot of time talking to people this month).

 

[Genx87]

Hey look, the guy who disregarded the opinion of the overwhelming majority of consumers in getting rid of net neutrality is suddenly worried about consumers. I'm sure this concern is totally genuine. This is the ISPs reaping what they have sown. They fought tooth and nail for the ability to screw their customers over without federal regulation and now instead they will get a patchwork of regulation from the states.

Womp womp.

I am really torn on net neutrality. From a networking perspective treating all traffic the same is an asinine way to run a network. Every corporate network worth a damn applies some form of QoS on their traffic. It will provide a better experience for VOIP, Video conference, and other vital application users when they are conducting business while the whole accounting department decides to fire up a world cup match at once. We also do not treat road traffic in this way. There are fast lanes, express lanes, rules that allow mass transit to use the shoulders. All in an effort to make the road more efficient and get traffic to its destination quicker. If we applied net neutrality to roads. We would have gridlock, even for buses. In a corporate environment legitimate network users could have severe issues doing work while others watched a live stream.

Where I am torn. These Telcos are basically govt mandated monopolies in many municipalities. So tough shit if they are to be required to treat all traffic as best effort.

And of course I am against any form of traffic shaping. That is imo where govt can get involved and fine\ban\make an example of a company providing less than best effort on any packets.

 

[fskimospy]

I am really torn on net neutrality. From a networking perspective treating all traffic the same is an asinine way to run a network. Every corporate network worth a damn applies some form of QoS on their traffic. It will provide a better experience for VOIP, Video conference, and other vital application users when they are conducting business while the whole accounting department decides to fire up a world cup match at once. We also do not treat road traffic in this way. There are fast lanes, express lanes, rules that allow mass transit to use the shoulders. All in an effort to make the road more efficient and get traffic to its destination quicker. If we applied net neutrality to roads. We would have gridlock, even for buses. In a corporate environment legitimate network users could have severe issues doing work while others watched a live stream.

Where I am torn. These Telcos are basically govt mandated monopolies in many municipalities. So tough shit if they are to be required to treat all traffic as best effort.

And of course I am against any form of traffic shaping. That is imo where govt can get involved and fine\ban\make an example of a company providing less than best effort on any packets.

The thing is that Obama’s net neutrality rules allowed for those sorts of QOS prioritizations. (I believe California’s does as well) There’s explicit carve outs for good faith network management and no requirement to treat all traffic blindly. I’m no network engineer (I can’t even get my home WiFi to work well) so I can’t say if the protections were sufficient but they were there.

I personally think the best solution is the UK one where you force the ISPs to lease their lines to anyone who wants to pay for them at a fair price. The ISPs turn into infrastructure companies and we see robust consumer competition return.