Probably because of more of this coming thru the pipeline:
Newsweek's Twitter account briefly hacked, threatens Obama family

Really?

I dismissed his partisan political analysis of someone else's idea as meaningless. I would welcome the release of Pai's plan.

He may not have a plan for changing the way the FCC oversees the internet. If he does, I would also like to see it, and analysis from opposing points of view. President Obama has a plan, and if we are prevented from reviewing the plan, the only way to evaluate it is through published analysis of it.

agree...
but he's not talking about his or any other plan put forth..

he's talking about the only one you seem to endorse without having seen or read it..
so before you slam him as just another R critic...
perhaps reading what O & his cronies have in mind would be a good thing..
that's all he's suggesting..
and that would include you..
unlike O's decree..
you've no need to know comrade..
move along..

Rika

I love how people post a wiki link to how awesome "the internet" is in South Korea or Japan. When I see it I know without a doubt they have never been to these places. Free wifi does not exist there. And the majority of the people there have about 512k DSL. This thought process of its on Wikipedia therefore it is true... It blows my mind!

Maybe stuff like this should be left to engineers. People that actually know what they are doing. Not the government.

Another thought is how the government won't allow US ISPs to use inexpensive equipment like Huawei out of hacking fear which increases the cost to build infrastructure. Then the government complains about a lack of infrastructure. It's a total catch 22 and the mess is because of government pretending to be engineers.

Net Neutrality is only an issue now because cable operators who have a geographical monopoly in many places want additional ways to monetize existing infrastructure and lock out competition.

Broadband penetration in the US is effectively saturated.

There are nearly no new customers.

They are left with trying to get customers to switch providers in areas where competition exists.

Rural places with no broadband are never going to get access. No provider is going to drop fiber to a farm when the cost to do that exceeds the lifetime value of the consumer. Simple issue of ROI.

They all bet on the premise of On Demand services. As the pipes they laid had plenty of bandwidth it opened secondary and tertiary revenue streams in the form of internet access and telephony services.

When cable rolled out broadband streaming video was still a pipe dream. Just like Block Buster they failed to predict youtube, Netflix and Hulu. Who needs $3.00 per view on demand when you can pay $7.99 per month for Netflix and watch as much content as there are hours in a day.

Add in services like Vonage that also piggybacked on the infrastructure and eventually their secondary revenue stream became a threat to their primary and tertiary revenue streams. Kind of ironic. Their own business is the biggest threat to their business.

It is the cable providers who are lobbying for changes to the way the internet works, not the government. The FCC is simply responding.

Now part of the cable operators gripes are valid. Specifically when it comes to Netflix. Netflix are a ****ty "partner". They are cheap and lazy. One of the biggest (and avoidable) complaints from Netflix customers is the choppy streaming right after dinner time. A time when consumption is highest. Netflix blame it on the provider when in reality Netflix have historically not enacted best practices to alleviate the load and provide a robust product. It's not rocket science, don't send all your traffic down one pipe and put caching servers inside cable providers networks like google, Apple and the other big players do.

Now I'm in the same camp as most people, government does not need to regulate everything. But if it comes down to government or the providers no way in hell would I ever advocate we put ourselves at Comcast, Verizon, TWC etc.. mercy.

Poke around a bit and see how they react when municipalities where they have geographic monopolies try to put in their own broadband networks. They take the municipalities to court to block them from doing so. The providers want a way to get an airtight grip on consumers in areas they service.

They are more than happy to carve out territories for themselves and rather than rely on customer acquisition and innovative services to grow revenue would instead look to extorting content providers for access to their customers.

Kind of the way the mob works.

A big part of the issue is how poorly understood it is. People don't know what's at stake, what the interests are, and what the rammifications of legislation or rules will be. Keeping the plan away from the public's eyes does not help the public's understanding.

That's true with the big boys like Verizon and Comcast. Would be could be competitors are enemy's that must be destroyed. Rather than innovate

Patrick is correct.

FCC don't even have to acknowledge POTUS's plan.

But they do have to react to the cable providers.

And people like Ted Cruz who have no understanding of how the internet works and what keeps it viable, or who do understand and simply misrepresent, are bigger contributors to the problem.

It's really mind boggling that people like Ted can say with a straight face that Net Neutrality will cause the problems that it inherently prevents.

That the concept of Net Neutrality will stifle innovation when all the innovation to date has occurred specifically as a result of the Net Neutrality principal borders on criminal.

I think the fcc does have to do what's in the plan.

And this thread isn't about net neutrality.

Ok, so the FCC doesn't need to acknowledge it, and the public can't see it. Now it just seems like a waste of time and effort. There is a great deal at stake here from the public's perspective. I do not see either entity, the government nor corporations, truly interested in serving the public's interests. This is an issue of money and power for both the corporate and government entities. Keeping your plan secret does nothing to convince me that your intentions are to serve the public's interest over your personal interests. Regardless of whether you are Verizon, Prersident Obama or Ted Cruz.

It's not THE plan, it's A plan. I'd like to see what every dog in the fight wants the FCC to do. Focusing on the POTUS plan is a distraction from the fact that lobbyists aren't telling us what they are whispering into to the FCC's ears.

Ok we've determined that the President's plan is a meaningless distraction, and that Pai's analysis of that plan is a meaningless partisan distraction. That our government's position as articulated by Senator Cruz can't be trusted, and that corporate positions cannot be trusted, but that the action of the FCC will have significant impact on the public. If you think that it is appropriate for the President to prevent the public from seeing his plan, that's fine, we simply disagree. We do agree that the corporate positions should be very available for public scrutiny.

you'd think the party of personal freedom would support personal freedom. but since the head of the FCC is an ex-lobbyst from the cable companies, and the cable companies donate millions to the GOP, they will follow the money of there big business masters ...

net neutrally is really just basic to the concept of freedom.

The idea that the cable companies would hesitate to donate millions to the Democrats, or that the Democrats would hesitate to follow their fiscal masters is a fantasy. If you trust the government and it is acting on behalf of their corporate donors, who have you given the authority to? It is easier to know if their intentions are made public.

it is also fundamentally anti-capitalist.

again, you'd think the party of capitalism and free market, would be in favor of the free market. but again ... who writes them the checks?

nowhere did i say that.

but the reality is, the reason the GOP currently is against net neutrality, is that its a complicated and technical issue to explain to old people, and since the cable companies are paying there bills, they will happy lie, call it socialism, and be against it.

On the surface of it, that does seem rather bizarre. Wheeler was a big-time lobbyist for the cable companies, was appointed by Obama, and approved without fanfare by the senate. And now he's trying to make the internet a government-regulated utility. Odd, to say the least.

How can you say this when we don't even know what the plan is?

do you know what net neutrally means? :rolleyes: