There are some folks like the ones you mentioned. Pai: Reasonable people fall on both sides of this issue. Are they just wrong? We’re talking about a lot of smart people, a lot of lawyers, Vint Cerf. Wood: I want to ask you about the opposition. But I think when you step back and look at the situation with somewhat of a dispassionate view, and you recognize that we’re simply returning to the light touch framework that we have starting with President Clinton in 1996, and that went through until 2015, and that’s served the entire internet economy, including consumers very well, then I think folks will come to recognize that that light touch framework is best calibrated to preserve the free and open internet, and to promote more infrastructure investment, which at the end of the day produces a great amount of consumer value. But I think the problem is that when you have elected officials and others saying that the internet is about to be destroyed, are you in favor of that or not, there’s no surprise, I think, that the polls seem to suggest that there is a level of concern. Pai: Well, I think there is a broad consensus in favor of a free and open internet. Nevertheless, a majority of people in a fairly broad swath of polls across political lines are in favor of some net neutrality regulation. Wood: You talk about hysteria and misinformation and the concern that the Internet is dying. So, I think for those consumers who want better access to the Internet and more competition these rules promise a brighter future. If you talk to smaller providers in particular, and I’ve spoken to many of them from Minnesota to Montana over the past week, they have said that these heavy handed regulations stand in the way of them building a business case for deploying internet infrastructure, especially in rural and low income urban areas. Pai: I think it means better, faster, cheaper internet access. Wood: But what does this change actually mean for consumers? 15 and the internet is the same and we have returned to the free market framework that has governed the internet for most of its existence, hopefully we can return to a more rational discourse about the future of this terrific online platform that has delivered so much digital opportunity to Americans and to people around the world. Who are the potential losers here?Ījit Pai: Those who have peddled hysteria and misinformation over the last three weeks suggesting for example that the internet as we know it is about to end, that democracy is threatened, that free speech and expression online are at risk. Molly Wood: In every policy change there are winners and losers. Below is an edited transcript of a portion of their conversation. Marketplace Tech host Molly Wood spoke with Pai ahead of the vote. In a previous conversation with Marketplace Tech, he suggested that ultimately “Congress would be well-positioned to take hold of this issue and just figure out what the rules of the road are going to be long-term.” Pai instead supports allowing high-speed internet service providers to have more freedom to police themselves and has said that these rules are harmful to business. Net neutrality rules have allowed internet service providers to be regulated by the government like public utilities. The net neutrality rules, created under the Obama administration, prevent internet service providers like Verizon or Comcast from favoring certain content by charging different rates for it or slowing down data. Despite concerns about the integrity of the comment period, FCC chairman Ajit Pai told us the vote will happen Dec. The Federal Communications Commission will vote to eliminate net neutrality rules this week.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |