FCC Boss Claims Net Neutrality Supporters Were Clearly Wrong Because Twitter Still Works The Day After Repeal

from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept

By now you’ve probably noticed that FCC boss Ajit Pai isn’t particularly popular online after he voted last week to kill popular net neutrality protections. A big reason for that unpopularity is Pai’s tendency to simply make things up as he rushes to coddle broadband duopolists, whether we’re talking about his bogus claims that net neutrality killed broadband investment, his claims that net neutrality only emboldens tyrants in Iran and North Korea, or his claims that the broadband market is amazingly competitive.

So in the wake of the repeal (which of course still needs to survive legal challenge) it’s not too surprising to see Pai engaging in more blatantly false nonsense as he tries to frame net neutrality supporters as hysterical hyperbolists. For example, Pai tried to argue last week on Fox and Friends that net neutrality supporters were clearly wrong to worry about the repeal because Twitter and Facebook still worked the day after the repeal:

To try and gather support for his extremely unpopular plan, Pai’s been throwing some red meat to the base by framing net neutrality concerns as the domain of out of touch Hollywood elites, despite the fact the rules have broad, bipartisan support. As such, Pai took particular aim at comments made by comedian Jimmy Kimmel, claiming he was foolish to worry about the repeal since social media websites still worked the day after the FCC voted 3-2 to kill the rules:

“He’s getting everything wrong about it,” Pai said of Kimmel. “The free and open internet we had prior to 2015 is the one we’re going to have going forward. And that kind of name-calling and hysteria is disappointing, but it’s not surprising.”

Pai went on to say that Kimmel and others were “proven wrong” by the fact that internet service providers (ISP) had not rolled out immediate changes Friday morning.

“Those who have said the internet as we know it is about to end have been proven wrong starting this morning,” Pai said, “as people send emails, check on their Twitter accounts, post on Facebook, and the like.”

But this is either an outright lie, or Pai honestly doesn’t know how his own agency even works. While the FCC voted to repeal the rules last week, the repeal itself doesn’t take effect until sixty days after the repeal hits the federal register, which doesn’t even happen until January. Even then, we’ve made it abundantly clear that ISPs will likely remain on their best behavior for a year or so. Why? They’ll want to portray net neutrality advocates as hysterical chicken littles. They also won’t want to provide any ammunition for the looming lawsuits against the FCC’s repeal.

It’s only once ISPs secure a court victory that you’ll see their true colors emerge. And even then, if they’re too heavy handed they risk future FCCs simply passing new rules down the road. That’s why you’re going to see a concerted ISP push for a new net neutrality law starting in the new year. One that professes to “fix” the problem, but is so loophole-filled as to be effectively useless. Its one real purpose? To prevent any future FCCs from re-passing tough net neutrality protections. It will be an attempt to codify regulatory apathy into law.

Even then ISPs aren’t likely to block websites outright. In large part because there’s a universe of more subtle ways that they can abuse the lack of adult regulatory oversight and limited competition to minimize press and public backlash, whether that’s fiddling with interconnection points to drive up costs for transit and content companies, or expanding arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps and overage fees to drive up the cost of cutting the cord.

And there’s a universe of “creative” bad behavior these ISPs haven’t even thought of yet. Remember, the Trump administration’s plan (which is really just Comcast, AT&T and Verizon’s plan) is to gut FCC, FTC and state oversight of some of the least-competitive companies in America almost entirely. With neither competition nor adult regulatory federal or state supervision in place to protect consumers and competition, the resulting damage — once ISPs feel comfortable enough to begin testing the limits of their newfound freedom — won’t be particularly subtle.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “FCC Boss Claims Net Neutrality Supporters Were Clearly Wrong Because Twitter Still Works The Day After Repeal”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
85 Comments
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Yeah, it’s pretty clear at this point that he does know what he’s doing. He’s just throwing out smug victory comments to those who’ve already been lied to for the last couple of years. Fox News viewers aren’t going to question it, since they’ve been misinformed all this time about what NN actually is. I’ve already seen it – Fox viewers joyous at the fact that the government won’t be able to censor Fox, willfully ignorant to the fact that that would never have happened, but they just handed the ability to Comcast to do just that on behalf of their rival news networks.

My guess is that all this is timed so that the dust has settled from the lawsuits by the time Trump is ousted from power (and hopefully Pence or whoever else might replace him in his own party before 2020 or, god forbid, 2024). If those lawsuits succeed, they’ll make noises along the lines of the lies that they’ve been pushing all along. If they fail, they’ll find some way of blaming the new administration for the way customers are getting open screwed without NN protections, and use that to try and get re-election. It’s sadly pretty clear once you stop assuming these people care about facts or making things work for a majority of citizens.

It’s depressing when you can see what’s actually happening, but it’s hard to get a majority to take enough interest to see how they’re being lied to.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

PaulT: First off bashing “fox news viewers” is idiotic. I voted for Trump and stand by most of what he has done. I dont agree with Pai or Trump on this. Making the usual “everyone on the right is dumb” type statement does nothing for the cause. I doubt you agree with everything your president did and if you did then your just as mindless as anyone on the right that does the same thing. You create an enemy out of a possible ally. Your side is so quick to play the intelligence card you keep underestimating the other side. I have multiple degrees in Electronics and Information Systems, but sure, Im just another uneducated fool to you. Time to recognize that no leadership is going to do everything right all the time and belittling the other sides voters doesnt create any new friends.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“Own your disaster. Defend your choice.”

I didn’t vote for Trump idiot, just stating that if you idiots could not beat that idiot with your idiot then what does that say about you idiots?

Trump sucks, they just ran a suckier candidate.

Oh, and whataboutism accusations are just weak minded whining about people exposing your double standards or hypocrisy. So cry me a river if you like, I am still going to point out bitching about Trump is just the loser’s way of keeping the focus on him so they don’t have to face the fact that their shit stank too!

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“Oh, and whataboutism accusations are just weak minded whining about people exposing your double standards or hypocrisy”

No, they’re honestly pointing out that your only response to a criticism of Trump’s actions is “what about Clinton?”. That’s what you do what you can’t defend his actions and have to deflect instead.

“I am still going to point out bitching about Trump is just the loser’s way of keeping the focus on him”

He is the president of your country. Why should people not focus on him more than the people he beat in the election?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Rather than trying to make enemies of people who might well be allies here, I’d suggest looking at the election a little differently.

The election wasn’t between “Trump” and “Clinton”; it was between “Anybody-but-Clinton” and “Anybody-but-Trump”–both candidates, let it be admitted, being compendia of many virtues.

“Anybody-but-Clinton” won handily, popular and electoral alike, in three time zones; whereupon people in the fourth made joyful noises in the form of piling on alas-irrelevant votes for “Anybody-but-Trump”.

Thus understood, the “what-about-X” comments make perfect sense as expressions of honesty and public spirit. Whomever you voted against, cherish all the people who also voted against evil in one form or another.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Rather than trying to make enemies of people who might well be allies here, I’d suggest looking at the election a little differently.

No thanks. That olive branch bullshit is exactly that – bullshit.

Trump is a pathetic piece of shit, who deserves no empathy whatsoever. He reaps what he sows. Those who continue to support this dickbag are exactly the problem with this country – they’re willing to overlook common decency over and over again.

They lowered the bar. I’m just playing at their level.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

"…I am still going to point out bitching about Trump is just the loser’s way of keeping the focus on him so they don’t have to face the fact that their shit stank too!"

Trump is the one currently fucking up the country, not Clinton. There is absolutely zero reason to keep bringing her up other than to deflect from criticism of Trump and your inability to defend his actions.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Hillary was bad, make no mistake. Her track record in places like Honduras made her a questionable leader and her unpopularity made her unsuitable to lead as she was unable to unite the country.

However, she is nowhere near the disaster that Trump has been for undermining the norms of democracy, and running the most openly corrupt administration in the history of the United States, that is openly hostile to and has effectively declared war on objective reality. She’s a calculating professional, whereas Trump is purely incompetent.

They’re both poor choices to nominate for leadership, and both major parties screwed up tremendously, but that in no way makes Trump defensible. He is doing damage to fundamental institutions that will take decades to repair.

There is no way to defend a Trump vote or his actions, unless you knowing cast a vote for someone who clearly was a pathological liar and a sociopath who enjoys the company of Nazi sympathizers in the hopes that somehow the damage he inflicted would result in sweeping reform to America’s electoral system to prevent a second Trump. And that simply isn’t going to happen, based on how the Republican party and congress are enabling him and his supporters in order to pass their self-serving cash grab tax “reform”.

connell says:

Re: Re: Re: Pai bashing

….well, the near hysterical tirade continues by the pro-NN crowd.

FCC NN decision has been made, but can be reversed at some future date.

The more sober NN supporters should focus on NN itself, rather than emotionally bashing Pai and NN opponents.

If NN supporters are correct … very bad consequences will now develop with NN repeal — What are those specific consequences (??) and When will they become apparent (??)

NN supporters now have a full real-world test of their views — if disaster strikes with NN abolition … then NN re-establishment should be easy.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Pai bashing

“NN supporters now have a full real-world test of their views — if disaster strikes with NN abolition … then NN re-establishment should be easy.”

You misunderstand the problem. There’s not going to be an instant apocalypse affecting the American internet. There will instead be a slow erosion of services and competition, combined with higher prices and restrictions.

All you have to do is look at the history of the major ISPs and see what they’ve tried to get away with while NN rules were in place, and realise they don’t have the same barriers any more. They’re too clever to do it overnight as the misinformed would actually notice. But, it will happen.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Pai bashing

“You misunderstand the problem. There’s not going to be an instant apocalypse affecting the American internet. There will instead be a slow erosion of services and competition, combined with higher prices and restrictions.”

It’s sad, but history seems doomed to repeat itself over and over. Companies will not self-regulate to protect consumers, so a measure of market regulation from the government is always, always necessary. Otherwise you end up with what healthcare has ended up as in the United States as a cutthroat system that values money over quality and care, or you end up with the banking crisis, where clearly questionable business practices lead to banks needing to beg for a bailout.

Government regulations and monitoring protect the public good. Yes, there can be too-much regulation or sometimes poorly implemented regulation, but other countries around the world have proven that it’s better to err on the side more regulation than less.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Pai bashing

"FCC NN decision has been made, but can be reversed at some future date."

Not if the ISP’s get their way and write the laws they really want, which is very clearly their real aim, and quite probably Pai’s too.

"The more sober NN supporters should focus on NN itself, rather than emotionally bashing Pai and NN opponents."

That’s a nonsensical statement. Pai is directly and personally responsible for undermining the current imperfect but not completely crap scenario. And the only real NN opponents are the ISP’s who want to fuck over their customers for more profit. They’re exactly who the focus should be on.

"If NN supporters are correct … very bad consequences will now develop with NN repeal — What are those specific consequences (??) and When will they become apparent (??)"

Is that a serious question? The answers have been discussed at length quite a bit recently…

"NN supporters now have a full real-world test of their views — if disaster strikes with NN abolition … then NN re-establishment should be easy."

This shows your gross ignorance of the topic. That test has already taken place and the results are well documented. It was difficult to fix then and it’ll be difficult to fix again.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

In my experience from my support desk days, the people who start going on about how many degrees they have are the ones who just screwed their system themselves but can’t admit they made a mistake.

The guys who actually understand what they’re doing don’t list their credentials to random strangers, certainly not as their only argument.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“The guys who actually understand what they’re doing don’t list their credentials to random strangers, certainly not as their only argument.”

And yet those that don’t list them are quickly dismissed for not being one of the experts.

So tell me, to you really feel that threatened?

An Onymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

And yet those that don’t list them are quickly dismissed for not being one of the experts.

…only if everything coming out of your mouth is obvious bullshit. If you need to hide behind your credentials then you don’t deserve them and probably only "earned" them by virtue of being able to pay for them and squeaked by with marginally passing grades.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

You’re posting anonymously. Of course listing off random credentials as your only argument is going to be dismissed, as there’s no way to verify them.

Do you have anything of substance to add, or just an appeal to an authority nobody can confirm exists? Try an argument that depends on verifiable facts.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Apologies if you take it personally. I only meant that from what I’ve seen most of the misinformation about what NN actually is seems to have come from outlets like Fox. The people I’ve come across who are most woefully misinformed seem to veer in that direction for the news input. Pai’s blatant lies recently have been made on Fox, among other similar outlets.

“I have multiple degrees in Electronics and Information Systems”

I tend to find that anyone who spouts off about what degrees and experience they have without discussing specifics are the most woefully misguided of all. Sorry.

“Your side is so quick to play the intelligence card you keep underestimating the other side”

…and people who think this is a team game are the dumbest of all.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“You create an enemy out of a possible ally. Your side is so quick to play the intelligence card you keep underestimating the other side.”

Possible ally? Really? In this current age of tribalism by the Republican party, the Democrats arguably are being suckers if they think there’s still an expectation of good-faith in political dealings:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/13/16760752/democrats-sexual-harassment-whataboutism

This is a terrifying political climate to be in, about hyper-partisanship, party over country and people. Trump is not solely to blame, the conservative media empire was ramping up to this eventuality over the course of years, but Trump is certainly a sign the problem has reached a definitive climax. Society is willing to eschew all sense of professional norms for a leader who is essentially a narcissistic sociopath with barely any actual governing or leadership skill, who was helped into power by a Russian campaign in order to likely undermine the United States’ position as a global power.

Anonymous Coward says:

Anti FCC nutter here.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/paqd9m/hawaii-net-neutrality-broadband-bill

You see, what this guy in Hawaii is doing is going to be far more effective a solution. It’s still not free market, and I am sure it is going to be challenged in courts by the incumbents but it is a better arrangement than NN.

We must first destroy the monopolies then they will lose all of that buying power to fuck you all over. NN keeps the monopoly status quo!

Like I said… NN staying or going does not make much of a difference, but if ever NN loving city/state starts building their own networks… well that will fuck the ISP’s harder than NN now wont it?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

but if ever NN loving city/state starts building their own networks..

But first they will have to repeal the ISP bought laws that stop them, and second prevent the ISPs from getting the FCC to stop them.

Those ISPs hate laws and regulations that stop them from doing what they want with Internet services, while adoring laws that protect their monopolies.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“But first they will have to repeal the ISP bought laws that stop them, and second prevent the ISPs from getting the FCC to stop them.”

A fight worth having in my opinion.

“Those ISPs hate laws and regulations that stop them from doing what they want with Internet services, while adoring laws that protect their monopolies.”

Agree, which is why I hate regulatory agency. All that money sitting there as the regulators eyeball it day in and day out.

This is why I only want regulations that focus on breaking up and preventing monopolies. I don’t want any regulation that allow regulators to tell businesses what they should or should not be doing or blessing monopoly fiefdoms like now because it leads to regulatory capture.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The alternative to net neutrality, and the preferable option, is local loop unbundling, like has happened in most of Europe. That requires regulatory oversight.

Also, regulatory capture has become a chronic problem in the US, because heads of agencies are short term political appointees, and therefore have their eye on the next job.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“The alternative to net neutrality, and the preferable option, is local loop unbundling, like has happened in most of Europe. That requires regulatory oversight.”

That is the type of regulation I would prefer to have compared to what we have now.

“Also, regulatory capture has become a chronic problem in the US, because heads of agencies are short term political appointees, and therefore have their eye on the next job.”

Yep, but that is spawned from another problem many people here refuse to recognize.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I am assuming that the problem we refuse to recognize is that by advocating for more regulation we have created the the regulatory capture issue because the regulations are what keeps the companies in monopoly power.

Stop contradicting yourself.

You can’t state you are against regulation and in the next breath state that you are for a particular type of regulation and expect people to take you seriously.

Regulation is regulation, it is not inherently good or bad simply because it is regulation, it is what the regulation actually says that is good or bad.

In my opinion, having regulation that states that users have a right to access any lawful content whenever they want and that ISP’s cannot infringe on that right by either blocking, throttling, or prioritizing is a good kind of regulation REGARDLESS of whether or not we eventually get the local loop unbundled. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Ben (profile) says:

Re: Re:

No, the corresponding analogy is that a law gets passed decriminalizing heroin. The law doesn’t officially take effect for 90+ days but the day after it gets signed they’re saying "Look! Legal Heroin hasn’t killed anyone!"

The FCC keeps talking about "before 2015" as if it were the golden age of the internet. The reason the NN rules were added was because of what the ISPs demonstrated they were willing to do, in a hope of cutting them off before they went too far. If the reversion holds, this does not bode well.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

more fear mongering. NN is not the saving grace you are billing it to be. It still had Zero Rating a topic that has been “conveniently” ignored by you folks because it is on the ropes.

Is NN better than nothing? Well sure… but we still have more than “nothing” to do still. I hope the death of NN gets the people, cities, and states to rebel in a way that gets them to start dismantling the monopoly and destroying NN is far more likely to cause that revolution than if we keep it around so all you Linuses can have your security blankets to hold while sucking your thumbs!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No we don’t ignore zero rating or the fact that the NN Title II rules were far from perfect and you are plainly ignoring the multitude of times this has been said before by us and by TD.
What Title II did was to give minor protections against the most major of of the dirtbag tricks that ISP’s could come up with, but now we have nothing and the way is open for big ISP to make their own rules that most likely will be very bad for anyone who aren’t them. This will be more likely to pass now that there is nothing.
We didn’t stride to just keep Title II, but it did provide a bit of breathing room and a stepping stone to combat the remaining problems… instead we have to spend all our energy keeping a new bad law out, instead of making something better.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“No we don’t ignore zero rating or the fact that the NN Title II rules were far from perfect and you are plainly ignoring the multitude of times this has been said before by us and by TD.”

I would say the nuttery you guys are showing over NN support leads me to believe that you are ignoring it for the time being and intentionally so.

I actually agree with ISP’s being classified as Title II but bad exceptions were made making the agreement stink to high heavens!

“We didn’t stride to just keep Title II, but it did provide a bit of breathing room and a stepping stone to combat the remaining problems…”

Nope, that is where are wrong. It’s a weak and pathetic band-aid that won’t solve a problem. At best kicking the can down the road!

While NN was in effect I still saw Caps, over charging/stuffing, terrible service and still had my connection throttled or bandwidth limited. So in short… NN is just a feel good piece of toilet paper that is only good for a quick trip to the shitter!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

What you didn’t see was Youtube or Netflix streams throttled but DirecTV streams could use your full bandwidth. You also didn’t see Verizon charging new startups for an additional fee (in addition to their own internet connection) for their service to reach customers on the Verizon network. These are both things that happened BEFORE we had NN rules and that ISPs are salivating over being able to do now that it’s no longer against the rules.

NN rules isn’t about fixing the dam, it’s about shoring up the dam enough to give us time to fix the dam PROPERLY without it all collapsing and making life 10x more miserable for everyone than it already is.

The only nuttery on display here is yours and those like you who conveniently ignore facts and continue to make claims about what we have or haven’t done/supported that are patently and verifiably false.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“The thing is, zero rating was a workaround, a way for the ISPs to get around the rules while pretending to uphold neutrality.”

I judge based on the “fruit” of the labor. You can bring it up all day long, but your actions make it clear you really are ignoring it. As long as Zero rating remains, its a shit bill! A work around like like you said so they can “pretend” which has the same result as though it was being ignored.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

No, he’s almost certainly not. Corrupt as hell, but I honestly do not think he’s stupid, which just makes it worse.

If someone it too stupid to understand the consequences of their actions it’s unfair to blame them too much for them. Yeah they may cause problems, but it’s not out of any malicious intent, they simply don’t know any better.

Contrast that to someone who is smart enough to understand what they are doing. It’s completely justified to blame them for their actions as they know full well what they are doing and do/did it anyway.

Pai’s not a fool, he knows full well that he’s screwing over the public to serve the ones he should be keeping in check, he simply doesn’t care.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“Ajit Pai is clearly an idiot.”

I disagree. Criminals can be smart. In fact there have been a number of terrorists with advanced degrees over the years.

Ajit Pai has spent his life using the courts to boost stuff from people who actually work for a living. I doubt the guy has the engineering skills to fold a paper airplane. In consequence he doesn’t fathom severity of the damage he has just done. To him it is just policy.

The fact that he just took a giant shit on the lifes work of thousands of Americans, not to mention betraying his oath and his country, doesn’t even occur to him. As long as he gets nice limo rides back and forth to the T.V. studio with lovely “personal assistants” to take care of his needs, and the adoring affirmations of mullah Verizon, he doesn’t care.

People aren’t people to this guy. The problem isn’t that he is an idiot. His faith in his absolute superiority in all things, precludes any reasoned debate. He is simply a terrorist with a law degree. Frankly I’m surprised that particular problem hasn’t been corrected yet.

Zyrac says:

The thing is, quite a few uninformed people really were freaking out as though the internet would implode the moment the vote went through. It’s the sort of thing that happens when a call to action goes viral and is being spread around by people who don’t fully understand the issue. So, Pai kinda sorta has a point, although he is of course using it as a cheap way of dismissing all opposition.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

This is also a bad thing for us. Now these uninformed people will see no immediate change and some will probably conclude that it was exaggeration. This might lead to that they no only won’t bother to stand with us on the subject the next time, but might even argue against us. In the mean time, ISP’s think somewhat long-term and will slowly but surely erode the internet over the years to come.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Yeah, I’d liken this to the Y2K bug. The media overhyped the issue and exaggerated some of what would happen. When very little came to pass, the less informed now write it off as hysteria over nothing. But, it only takes a few moments to demonstrate it was very real on a vulnerable system.

What actually happened, of course, is that while the hysteria helped people be aware of how important it was, companies running older systems vulnerable to the bug either got them repaired or replaced with something not vulnerable. So, by the time the date came to pass, only a few people were affected by the very real, but defanged issue.

The problem here is that this isn’t the date when we see the outcome. The frog has only just been put on boil, so to speak, it’s just a matter of time before people notice that they’re the boiling frog, but it will take enough time they won’t blame the repeal of NN.

Talmyr (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The difference is, Y2K was a possibility, based on bitter experience with the way stuff was coded, and some early evidence of possible problems.

This form of non-NN was known, both in experience of how the American ISPs were breaking things already, and in comparison with other countries who had competition and some form of NN. You also have ISPs writing bad self-interested law. So it’s a lot more evidenced – it’s not like airlines were writing laws indemnifying them for planes falling from the sky!

Anonymous Coward says:

Pai should just shut the hell up.

This guy has a special place in hell designed just for him ready to receive him and his corporate masters. Here in Puerto Rico T mobile already started airing a promotion that “includes” netflix in one of their plans in a rather blatant fashion. Zero rating still is a violation of the spirit of net neutrality.
Of course this asshole is crowing about how companies haven’t done anything bad yet. Companies arent going to just go crazy abusive overnight it will be a slow subtle progress to avoid public outrage themselves.

They already started the push to write a new net neutrality law that will be sold to us by congress but will unequivocally be writen by the corporations. You can bet it will be as full of loopholes as every other protectionist law they have writen in the past, enough so as to provide zero protection from their abuses.

Anonymous Coward says:

It’s called the “Boiling frog syndrome.”
Named after the parable that if you throw a frog into hot water it’ll jump out, but if you put it in cold water it’ll happily stay until it’s cooked, as the heating of the water is too gradual for it to notice.
.
It’s just one of the numerous fallacies employed by both NN attackers and climate science denialists alike. They just don’t have the cognitive capability of thinking in the long-term. They can’t comprehend that trends established in the past and continuing in the present will also most likely extend through the future.
.
“My front yard’s covered in snow not ocean, so climate change is all alarmism and hysteria.”
.
“My internet didn’t get tiered, capped and throttled overnight, therefore the harm of no regulation is all alarmism amd hysteria.”

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“My front yard’s covered in snow not ocean, so climate change is all alarmism and hysteria.”

When someone’s stupid enough to use that argument, I ask them what season it is. When they say winter, I say, no it’s not, Australia is having a very hot summer right now. Only half the planet is experiencing winter, and even then there’s lots of countries where it’s not anywhere near cold enough to see snow even in winter.

They usually just get angry and rant or sulk rather than have it dawn on them what the first word in the term “global warming” actually means. But, it’s more pleasant than having them throw the same discredited “proof” back at me to debunk for the hundredth time only for the actual evidence to be ignored.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I think it depends on whether your browser entered your email address automatically, but there’s usually something in your account settings somewhere to allow you to retrieve prior comments and have them associated with your login. It’s not happened to be for a while and I think it only appears when you have something to retrieve, so I can’t tell you 100% where it is right now, but might be worth having a look.

Bryan Webb says:

Pai thinks people worried about NN repeal cutting off official White House communication channel?

“For example, Pai tried to argue last week on Fox and Friends that net neutrality supporters were clearly wrong to worry about the repeal because Twitter … still worked the day after the repeal…”

Lemme see if I get this straight. Twitter, which serves as the President’s preferred _official_ communication channel, continues to operate after the repeal of net neutrality, and this is proof that I shouldn’t worry.

Well, whether I should worry or not, I’m sure not surprised.

And to me, if the repeal of net neutrality would cut the President off from Twitter as an _official_ communication channel, I think that _would_ be a strong selling point. Perhaps Ajit Pai should look into this.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
06:31 Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will. (25)
06:23 Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality (49)
13:36 Ex-FCC Staffer Says FCC Authority Given Up In Net Neutrality Repeal Sure Would Prove Handy In A Crisis (13)
06:27 Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars (11)
06:17 The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time? (79)
08:56 AT&T, Comcast Dramatically Cut Network Spending Despite Net Neutrality Repeal (16)
06:18 Ajit Pai Hits CES... To Make Up Some Shit About Net Neutrality (24)
06:24 Mozilla, Consumer Groups Petition For Rehearing of Net Neutrality Case (22)
06:49 AT&T Exec Insists That No Broadband Company Is Violating Net Neutrality Even Though AT&T Is Absolutely Violating Net Neutrality (19)
06:45 Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality (61)
More arrow