FCC commissioner says ISP industry "vibrant broadband marketplace"

[CommandMan7]

You literally cannot make this stuff up. 

 

Commisioner Ajit Pai about Obama's 322 page plan to regulate the internet:

 

 

“The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market,” Pai said. “As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get.”

 

Last time I checked, there is no such "vibrant broadband marketplace". He also says that title II is designed to regulate a monopoly, which is true, but the internet is currently a group of localized monopolies. To deny that the internet is monopolized is just a flat out lie. For example, I pay $60 a month for 200GB capped 5Mb down 1Mb up service. Every other plan in my area is either magnitudes slower or limited to even less data. Essentially, if you want to use any video streaming service Netflix or Youtube, which is a modern expectation, you are in a monopoly. If a family of 5 watches ~2 hours of streaming video a day (not uncommon), that's 300 hours a month. At the data cap and speed I get, I max out data after ~90 hours. 90 hours only supports a family of 5 if everyone watches 35 minutes a day, about one Netflix episode per person. The worst part is, this doesn't even consider other internet usage. Factor that in, and I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't even watch 20 minutes a day without exceeding data. It's obvious that one decent option with a lot of horrendous options does not count as "competition" to the majority of people. Anyway, back to the story.

 

Commissioner Ajit Pai elaborates:

 

 

“Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation,” Pai said recalling the lawsuit that struck down the FCC’s Internet authority last year, setting off the year-long debate. “There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.”

 

What he doesn't say is that the reason that the last two attempts failed is because the internet is not title II. The courts said that under title I, the FCC cannot regulate, and therefore must reclassify internet as title II. Now that the FCC is classifying internet as title II, the FCC can lawfully regulate ISP's. Honestly, I wonder how these people get into such positions of power, it's so obvious he is loyal to corporations, not people. 

 

Sources:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/06/republican-fcc-commissioner-slams-obamas-332-page-plan-to-regulate-the-internet/

http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/ajit-pai

 

Edit: No wonder Ajit Pai is defending corparations - this is quoted strait from his bio page of the FCC's website:

He served as Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc, where he handled competition matters, regulatory issues, and counseling of business units on broadband initiatives

 

Essentially, his career is built around increasing corporate profits, suppressing competition, bypassing regulations, and exploiting broadband initiatives. 

[EChondo]

The broadband marketplace can be vibrant, but it isn't.

 

It's very sad to see that someone who has such an important role can be so ignorant and greedy.

 

I hope he steps on a lego.

[Sidiox]

A yes, it should be vibrant. But that won't happen. So the next best thing in that case is Title II I think (although I don't quite know how it works in the US)

[NateGSR117]

Now that a dingo

[zacRupnow]

I want South Korea to take over all internet and ISP related matters here in the USA.

[CommandMan7]

I'm surprised this didn't get much attention, most of the time the forum gets all over the FCC's crap.

[Trik'Stari]

[HalGameGuru]

As I mentioned in the Comments on the recent WAN Show, This whole Title II debacle feels like ISP's playing the rogue saying "Aw shucks, you caught us" on Net Neutrality to only be getting exactly what they want, a more regulated, completely closed market, cutting into their profits but removing any threat of competition and securing their customer base. I fear poorer service, even fewer options, and MAYBE slightly lower prices, but regulating competitors out of the market will not help us, and will definitely help the monopolies.

 

There's a good analogous story in the state sponsored monopolies of ferry service in New York back in the day. Got smashed by private competition, in the face of government edict and fiat. We no longer live in that country. And how much tax money is it going to cost to oversee the new regulations? How much bureaucracy must be created to process and enforce it? How much productivity from the private sector is going to be siphoned into state agency over this?

[CommandMan7]

As I mentioned in the Comments on the recent WAN Show, This whole Title II debacle feels like ISP's playing the rogue saying "Aw shucks, you caught us" on Net Neutrality to only be getting exactly what they want, a more regulated, completely closed market, cutting into their profits but removing any threat of competition and securing their customer base. I fear poorer service, even fewer options, and MAYBE slightly lower prices, but regulating competitors out of the market will not help us, and will definitely help the monopolies.

 

There's a good analogous story in the state sponsored monopolies of ferry service in New York back in the day. Got smashed by private competition, in the face of government edict and fiat. We no longer live in that country. And how much tax money is it going to cost to oversee the new regulations? How much bureaucracy must be created to process and enforce it? How much productivity from the private sector is going to be siphoned into state agency over this?

That's an interesting take on the situation, I thought that title II gives the FCC the authority to break up monopolies.

[AlexGoesHigh]

wat? isn't title II suppose to also remove the zone exclusiveness ISP have, i'm just... WAT?!?!?!

[Misanthrope]

Is a tactic as old as politics themselves: Claim the exact motherfucking opposite of what is going on with a straight face. 

[Trik'Stari]

Is a tactic as old as politics themselves: Claim the exact motherfucking opposite of what is going on with a straight face. 

Isn't that just politics? Not even a tactic really.

[HalGameGuru]

That's an interesting take on the situation, I thought that title II gives the FCC the authority to break up monopolies.

And that was just the idea of cronyism and corrupt collusion between the state and its constructs, theres more stuff coming out even more squint inducing.

 

This is an admittedly biased source. But, it shines a light on one of the other facets of the situation.

 

FCC Member says Net Neutrality is not "Neutral"

 

Don't forget the federal government has created an order of magnitude more monopolies than it ever broke up, and most monopolies, when they arise thru fair market competition, are not negatives; but the federal government CREATED or PROTECTED most all the monopolies we have had to deal with over the last century, from transportation, to telecom, electricity, etc.

 

As long as you keep your hands in your neighbors pockets you never feel the pinch cuz the money is always coming from somewhere else.