7 ms·

Is this a surprise? Pai has made it abundantly clear he doesn't care what consumers think. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but the idea he would respond to their c

by kem 9y ago

Is this a surprise? Pai has made it abundantly clear he doesn't care what consumers think. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but the idea he would respond to their concerns always seemed naive to me.

cavanasm 9y ago
Agreed. Even with service providers saying "we aren't trying to get rid of net neutrality", Pai himself has in numerous public forums said explicitly that he wants to get rid of net neutrality.
jackmott 9y ago
no it isn't a surprise but we should still be mad as hell, try to stop it, and punish those responsible.
shmerl 9y ago
He might not care, but big amount of negative responses can help beat him in court, when FCC will be sued for repealing Net Neutrality. If it will be demonstrated that FCC acted against public interest, courts can simply prevent this idiocy from happening. It also helps the Congress to understand that people pay attention aren't buying the monopolistic koolaid. So, please comment if you care.
- pvnick 9y ago
  Be careful of wishing for judicial oligarchy, because when it happens you may not enjoy what it looks like.
  - lostcolony 9y ago
    You prefer the Rule of Pai? I think I'd prefer the multiple court of appeals process to determine whether the FCC discharged its duty, rather than an uncontested decision by Pai that clearly goes against what the people want, in defiance of the duty the FCC is charged with.
    - pvnick 9y ago
      I prefer the rule of nobody but the consumer. That's what markets are for.
      - Spare_account 9y ago
        My understanding is that in most US cities there is only one choice of cable Internet provider so the consumer cannot choose a provider that offers neutral service. So the FCC is required to force the providers to comply with the will of the people. And they're not doing it.
      - shmerl 9y ago
        In case of monopolists, you get the rule of monopolists. Do you prefer that? That's part of what Net Neutrality is supposed to protect from.
      - metalliqaz 9y ago
        Yeah, that would be great in the Ayn Rand's fantasy land. Unfortunately, back here in reality there is no ISP market. Consumers have little to no choice, and vertically integrated mega-corps have a stranglehold on everything. We all rely on our representative government to stand up to a titan like Comcast.
      - devnonymous 9y ago
        Yep, but worth reminding you at this point that in this case you are the commodity, the companies are the consumers and the Internet is the market. Free market will make more sense if you think about it that way.
      - Teknoman117 9y ago
        the market only exists when there are multiple providers for services or goods. I have only one choice of ISP where I live, so basically i have to pay whatever they want for internet service, have no internet, or move. This is also the case for many Americans, and with our FCC director also being pro-merger, it could also get a lot worse (your two options merge into one option). The ISPs have lobbied and colluded with each other to the point of making their regional monopolies legal in order to have no competition. This is why we need government oversight of this industry, as they've done a damn good job making sure you don't have the option to switch providers if you don't like them.
  - metalliqaz 9y ago
    You don't understand the word "oligarchy".
    - qubex 9y ago
      Kritarchy — rule by judges: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritarchy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritarchy
      - metalliqaz 9y ago
        In the context of his comment, as well has his other posts, it is clear to me that he objects to judges essentially limiting what people can and can't do. In my opinion, it's implied he applies that to those currently in power and their assumed mandate. Unfortunately for that argument, we don't have rule by judges by any stretch. Judges (and police/prosecutors/etc) do have lots of power, but they are still bound by the law and therefore checked by the legislative branch of the government, should it come to that.
- schoen 9y ago
  The courts don't have to examine whether or not they think a rule change is in the public interest, nor would they have to conclude that the public interest is proven by what position got the most individual comments in support of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States)#Standard_of_judicial_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(... They could conclude that an agency unreasonably ignored specific arguments in public comments, but probably not that the fact that the agency wasn't swayed by the volume of the comments was unreasonable.
  - shmerl 9y ago
    If the arguments were repeated multiple times, it's easier to point out that FCC intentionally ignored them, and it's not "we didn't notice" situation.
kevin_b_er 9y ago
Pai, like most Republicans, have repeatedly shown their view that the profit of a corporation is always more important than human interests.
pvnick 9y ago
I'm a consumer and I think this is a good thing. Can't make all the people happy all the time. Edit: Besides, government policies reflexively guided by consumer sentiment is called populism, which is dangerous.
- aaomidi 9y ago
  Please explain.
  - pvnick 9y ago
    Read this article by the brilliant Ben Shapiro: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/10/7-reasons-net-neutrality/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/10/7-reasons... Edit: To those knee-jerk rejecting the argument based on the Breitbart domain, besides being intellectually lazy, you should know that Ben Shapiro is a very well-respected author on matters of economics and politics (and indeed that Breitbart used to be a very respectable media outlet before the founder, Andrew Breitbart, passed away and the company was taken over by Steve Bannon)
    - digitalneal 9y ago
      Had to stop reading after this quote "ISPs generally do not discriminate against highly-trafficked websites. If they did – holding a figurative gun to the head of those websites by throttling back speed to those websites – consumers would dump those ISPs in favor of others." I'd believe this true if any of the large cities I have lived in actually had competition between ISPs.
      - pvnick 9y ago
        Ok well you made it about 10% through the article - at least you made a modest attempt at understanding the other side of the debate.
        digitalneal 9y ago

by kem 9y ago

Is this a surprise? Pai has made it abundantly clear he doesn't care what consumers think. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but the idea he would respond to their concerns always seemed naive to me.

cavanasm 9y ago

Agreed. Even with service providers saying "we aren't trying to get rid of net neutrality", Pai himself has in numerous public forums said explicitly that he wants to get rid of net neutrality.

jackmott 9y ago

no it isn't a surprise but we should still be mad as hell, try to stop it, and punish those responsible.

shmerl 9y ago

He might not care, but big amount of negative responses can help beat him in court, when FCC will be sued for repealing Net Neutrality. If it will be demonstrated that FCC acted against public interest, courts can simply prevent this idiocy from happening. It also helps the Congress to understand that people pay attention aren't buying the monopolistic koolaid. So, please comment if you care.

pvnick 9y ago
Be careful of wishing for judicial oligarchy, because when it happens you may not enjoy what it looks like.
- lostcolony 9y ago
  You prefer the Rule of Pai? I think I'd prefer the multiple court of appeals process to determine whether the FCC discharged its duty, rather than an uncontested decision by Pai that clearly goes against what the people want, in defiance of the duty the FCC is charged with.
  - pvnick 9y ago
    I prefer the rule of nobody but the consumer. That's what markets are for.
    - Spare_account 9y ago
      My understanding is that in most US cities there is only one choice of cable Internet provider so the consumer cannot choose a provider that offers neutral service. So the FCC is required to force the providers to comply with the will of the people. And they're not doing it.
    - shmerl 9y ago
      In case of monopolists, you get the rule of monopolists. Do you prefer that? That's part of what Net Neutrality is supposed to protect from.
    - metalliqaz 9y ago
      Yeah, that would be great in the Ayn Rand's fantasy land. Unfortunately, back here in reality there is no ISP market. Consumers have little to no choice, and vertically integrated mega-corps have a stranglehold on everything. We all rely on our representative government to stand up to a titan like Comcast.
    - devnonymous 9y ago
      Yep, but worth reminding you at this point that in this case you are the commodity, the companies are the consumers and the Internet is the market. Free market will make more sense if you think about it that way.
    - Teknoman117 9y ago
      the market only exists when there are multiple providers for services or goods. I have only one choice of ISP where I live, so basically i have to pay whatever they want for internet service, have no internet, or move. This is also the case for many Americans, and with our FCC director also being pro-merger, it could also get a lot worse (your two options merge into one option). The ISPs have lobbied and colluded with each other to the point of making their regional monopolies legal in order to have no competition. This is why we need government oversight of this industry, as they've done a damn good job making sure you don't have the option to switch providers if you don't like them.
- metalliqaz 9y ago
  You don't understand the word "oligarchy".
  - qubex 9y ago
    Kritarchy — rule by judges: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritarchy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritarchy
    - metalliqaz 9y ago
      In the context of his comment, as well has his other posts, it is clear to me that he objects to judges essentially limiting what people can and can't do. In my opinion, it's implied he applies that to those currently in power and their assumed mandate. Unfortunately for that argument, we don't have rule by judges by any stretch. Judges (and police/prosecutors/etc) do have lots of power, but they are still bound by the law and therefore checked by the legislative branch of the government, should it come to that.
schoen 9y ago
The courts don't have to examine whether or not they think a rule change is in the public interest, nor would they have to conclude that the public interest is proven by what position got the most individual comments in support of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States)#Standard_of_judicial_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(... They could conclude that an agency unreasonably ignored specific arguments in public comments, but probably not that the fact that the agency wasn't swayed by the volume of the comments was unreasonable.
- shmerl 9y ago
  If the arguments were repeated multiple times, it's easier to point out that FCC intentionally ignored them, and it's not "we didn't notice" situation.

kevin_b_er 9y ago

Pai, like most Republicans, have repeatedly shown their view that the profit of a corporation is always more important than human interests.

pvnick 9y ago

I'm a consumer and I think this is a good thing. Can't make all the people happy all the time. Edit: Besides, government policies reflexively guided by consumer sentiment is called populism, which is dangerous.

aaomidi 9y ago
Please explain.
- pvnick 9y ago
  Read this article by the brilliant Ben Shapiro: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/10/7-reasons-net-neutrality/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/10/7-reasons... Edit: To those knee-jerk rejecting the argument based on the Breitbart domain, besides being intellectually lazy, you should know that Ben Shapiro is a very well-respected author on matters of economics and politics (and indeed that Breitbart used to be a very respectable media outlet before the founder, Andrew Breitbart, passed away and the company was taken over by Steve Bannon)
  - digitalneal 9y ago
    Had to stop reading after this quote "ISPs generally do not discriminate against highly-trafficked websites. If they did – holding a figurative gun to the head of those websites by throttling back speed to those websites – consumers would dump those ISPs in favor of others." I'd believe this true if any of the large cities I have lived in actually had competition between ISPs.
    - pvnick 9y ago
      Ok well you made it about 10% through the article - at least you made a modest attempt at understanding the other side of the debate.
      - digitalneal 9y ago