Mr. Midst
Senior Member
- Feb 8, 2017
- 110
- 37
- 48
Ajit Pai is of the mindset that any government interference is unacceptable, and all levels of life must be decided by fair competition. And I won't knock him for that because I agree to an extent.
However, with internet providers, it doesn't work.
Ajit Pai and at least two other FCC members are set to finally repeal Net Neutrality in December by what is predicted to be a 3-2 vote. If that happens, a lot of government regulation is taken away and internet providers basically have free reign to control what you see on the internet, where you go on the internet, and how fast that internet comes. Many seem to think that we would see the dawn of an Internet age that will be built upon censorship, corporate abuse, and a massive increase in premium deals and forced payments.
Now Mr. Pai doesn't seem to think that, because if one such company were to go off the deep end and start increasing payments and censorship, everyone will simply buy a new internet provider. If AT&T decides to do something irrational and greedy, people will just end their contracts and go into Verizon and Comcast. So everything will be fine.
But here's the problem: The three companies I mentioned above is just about all you have to choose from.
The reason Net Neutrality is a good idea is because the competition in the ISP business is remarkably small. Some places don't even have competition. For example, in my area, all I have to choose from is Comcast. AT&T, Verizon, and Google Fiber does not cover my area. It's either Comcast or no internet for me and my neighbors.
So what would I do if Comcast is the company that decides to go crazy and start putting up ungodly amounts of paywalls and premium fast lanes? Do I just move outta town, and find a school/job where Verizon covers me? Or do I sit here and get owned like a dog by Comcast?
I think that's a terrible situation to be in, especially if the ISP business decides to monopolize. Because they very much do wish to monopolize. As evident by the merger between AT&T and Time Warner, the powers that be in the provider business are more than willing to join up for a bigger payday. The less companies, the less competition. And people will have to settle on spending big money to keep the basic essentials of the current free internet.
Of course, Donald Trump has fought against the merger, forming a lawsuit so that all that power doesn't fall into the hands of the few, but that raises another question: If they're so against power being in the hands of so few, why is the fate of the internet being decided by the 5 un-elected commissioners of the FCC? Why are they planning to hand over the power to control what is seen and done on the internet to a very small amount of CEO's?
Come next year, we could very well be at the mercy of 3 or 2 internet provider companies. For an administration that has declared that it will 'Drain the swamp' of lobbyists and monopolies and corporate pawns, this decision to remove Net Neutrality sure seems to be a product of the ISP's lobbyists, monopolies, and corporate pawns, as no one else has shown any support for this thing besides the suits at Verizon and AT&T.
Oh and that's another thing. Pai also came out and said that the 22 million comments the FCC (98.5% of which favored Net Neutrality) didn't really matter because most of them were 'informal' and offered nothing of substance to him. And that's scary, to know that a man handpicked by the president has deemed the public outcry, the will of the people (an Idea that our democratic nation was founded on!) doesn't mean much to him, and is going to continue with giving power the big corporations in the name of 'competition'.
To me, this guy is a ISP stooge, a lobbyist wolf hiding in Trump's farm of sheeps. And it's troubling to know that no amount of votes, letters, or public opinion is going to sway him from handing a large amount of the internets freedom and wealth to a small, almost oligarchical group of internet providers.
What do you guys think?
However, with internet providers, it doesn't work.
Ajit Pai and at least two other FCC members are set to finally repeal Net Neutrality in December by what is predicted to be a 3-2 vote. If that happens, a lot of government regulation is taken away and internet providers basically have free reign to control what you see on the internet, where you go on the internet, and how fast that internet comes. Many seem to think that we would see the dawn of an Internet age that will be built upon censorship, corporate abuse, and a massive increase in premium deals and forced payments.
Now Mr. Pai doesn't seem to think that, because if one such company were to go off the deep end and start increasing payments and censorship, everyone will simply buy a new internet provider. If AT&T decides to do something irrational and greedy, people will just end their contracts and go into Verizon and Comcast. So everything will be fine.
But here's the problem: The three companies I mentioned above is just about all you have to choose from.
The reason Net Neutrality is a good idea is because the competition in the ISP business is remarkably small. Some places don't even have competition. For example, in my area, all I have to choose from is Comcast. AT&T, Verizon, and Google Fiber does not cover my area. It's either Comcast or no internet for me and my neighbors.
So what would I do if Comcast is the company that decides to go crazy and start putting up ungodly amounts of paywalls and premium fast lanes? Do I just move outta town, and find a school/job where Verizon covers me? Or do I sit here and get owned like a dog by Comcast?
I think that's a terrible situation to be in, especially if the ISP business decides to monopolize. Because they very much do wish to monopolize. As evident by the merger between AT&T and Time Warner, the powers that be in the provider business are more than willing to join up for a bigger payday. The less companies, the less competition. And people will have to settle on spending big money to keep the basic essentials of the current free internet.
Of course, Donald Trump has fought against the merger, forming a lawsuit so that all that power doesn't fall into the hands of the few, but that raises another question: If they're so against power being in the hands of so few, why is the fate of the internet being decided by the 5 un-elected commissioners of the FCC? Why are they planning to hand over the power to control what is seen and done on the internet to a very small amount of CEO's?
Come next year, we could very well be at the mercy of 3 or 2 internet provider companies. For an administration that has declared that it will 'Drain the swamp' of lobbyists and monopolies and corporate pawns, this decision to remove Net Neutrality sure seems to be a product of the ISP's lobbyists, monopolies, and corporate pawns, as no one else has shown any support for this thing besides the suits at Verizon and AT&T.
Oh and that's another thing. Pai also came out and said that the 22 million comments the FCC (98.5% of which favored Net Neutrality) didn't really matter because most of them were 'informal' and offered nothing of substance to him. And that's scary, to know that a man handpicked by the president has deemed the public outcry, the will of the people (an Idea that our democratic nation was founded on!) doesn't mean much to him, and is going to continue with giving power the big corporations in the name of 'competition'.
To me, this guy is a ISP stooge, a lobbyist wolf hiding in Trump's farm of sheeps. And it's troubling to know that no amount of votes, letters, or public opinion is going to sway him from handing a large amount of the internets freedom and wealth to a small, almost oligarchical group of internet providers.
What do you guys think?
