Ajit Pai did nothing wrong and shouldn't be attacked with as much personal vitriol as we're seeing.
[deleted]
Ajit Pai is right
81–90 of 316 posts
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#82EDIT: deleted
Yes, competition would be nice. And you won't find a single NN proponent who would be opposed to increasing competition.
But you know what? That's a completely orthogonal argument. Because we do not currently live in a world with that level of competition, and repealing NN would do absolutely nothing to change that. Not an iota. The world we currently live in, is one where the vast majority of Americans have access to maybe one or two broadband providers. There is no competition. You can argue why that is, but in reality, it doesn't matter. There is not competition, and there won't be for quite some time. So if you repeal NN now, you repeal NN in that anti-competitive environment. There is nothing preventing the things that you claim won't happen, but have absolutely nothing but the "good faith" of the ISPs to go on.
You want to increase competition. We all do. But please don't make the mistake of repealing NN before that happens. It will do nothing but strengthen the incumbent ISPs, making it that much harder to compete with them. Instead, work for policies like Local Loop Unbundling, or municipal broadband. Then, after we've created a competitive market, then look at NN.
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#83> There is no evidence of systemic abuse by ISPs governed under Title I, which means there are not immediate benefits to regulation, only theoretical ones False. They've tried in the past I believe. There was something with AT&T and iPhone users around 2010 (IIRC it was about Facetime)? There were more. Also the thing about Portugal and Euros. Yeah that graphic has been circulating for a while now, it predates this d…
Redditor Lists All The Times ISP's Have Illegally Broken Net Neutrality Laws
https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/7elqw7/redditor_lis...
Edit: added title
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#84This person misses the entire point of the argument for Net Neutrality - Yes it can be convenient if you know ALL of the apps and or services you'd like to use, however the entire internet being visible means putting small companies you have not yet heard of on nearly equal footing - giving them the chance to compete against the giants of commerce and sometimes (yes, sometimes it happens) WIN! The beauty of the inter…
EDIT: deleted
20 years ago it was a different world. The Internet was new. ISPs were new and there were more of them, with many being local and regional businesses. Technology for deep packet inspection and micro-prioritization of IP flows was non-existent or very inconvenient to deploy.
Today ISPs have already deployed technology to allow them to micro-prioritize and inspect all Internet traffic and are chomping at the bit to use it, and significantly more money is on the line. Today if ISPs are allowed to use this technology to pick winners and tax Internet companies they will do it.
My real long term concern is that this could lead to the effective blocking of peer-to-peer network capability on the consumer Internet. It would no longer even be possible for an edge to reach another edge with good performance.
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article discusses this stuff. That said: guess what? The wireless carrier world currently has exemptions from net neutrality. It's the wired world where these rules apply.
Are you suggesting that the desired effect is that the wired world becomes more like the wireless? I suppose it depends on your geographic location, but I suspect many North Americans would say: no thanks.
> Are you suggesting that the desired effect is that the wired world becomes more like the wireless?
not at all... parent is merely pointing out that NetNeut doesn't apply to wireless.
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#86This person misses the entire point of the argument for Net Neutrality - Yes it can be convenient if you know ALL of the apps and or services you'd like to use, however the entire internet being visible means putting small companies you have not yet heard of on nearly equal footing - giving them the chance to compete against the giants of commerce and sometimes (yes, sometimes it happens) WIN! The beauty of the inter…
EDIT: deleted
Walmart couldn't have done this 20 years ago because they didn't realise how big or important the web could be at that time. Very few people did.
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did I miss some new proposal that Ajit Pai has put forward? It is my understanding that "The rules Ajit Pai wants in place" were in place from sometime during the ninties or earlier, until 2015. That is, Ajit Pai merely wishes to undo a rule that was only in force from 2015 to the present. Am I mistaken? Because I think the world you say you don't want to live in is the one we actually did live in for most of the his…
The thing you missed is that internet providers started to realize they may be able to squeeze more money out of both consumers and large corporates a few years back and that began to change their thoughts about how to make more money with a largely unregulated industry and Net Neutrality was put in place to preserve the internet's ability to innovate. Let's not forget Ajit Pai was just a few years ago a corporate at…
How did they "realize" that, suddenly a couple years ago? I am not doubting you, I am genuinely confused.
I mean, human greed is a constant, and the rules didn’t change from 1996-2015, yet during the same period you said that Wal-Mart would have paid to destroyed Amazon, Amazon became one of the most wealthy and powerful companies in the world. So... it must be something more than the rules, right? Greedy companies were just unimaginative with their greed until a few years ago?
To put it another way: If Wal-Mart simply didn’t realize some trick in those days, what information would the Walton family need to take with them in their time machine to destroy Amazon from 1996-2015?
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
EDIT: deleted
Maybe in a vacuum it's a bad argument, but this is within the context of Comcast & Friends. Nor is it my only argument. You're also misrepresenting it with your quote. I don't mistrust them because I don't like them. I mistrust them because of things these companies have done in the past. There's absolutely no good faith in their actions, as shown previously.
[deleted]
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did I miss some new proposal that Ajit Pai has put forward? It is my understanding that "The rules Ajit Pai wants in place" were in place from sometime during the ninties or earlier, until 2015. That is, Ajit Pai merely wishes to undo a rule that was only in force from 2015 to the present. Am I mistaken? Because I think the world you say you don't want to live in is the one we actually did live in for most of the his…
You're right that the rules have only been in place since 2015, but you're wrong that we live the the same world we always have. The world has changed, and the rules should change along with it.
Okay, how did it change?
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#90This person misses the entire point of the argument for Net Neutrality - Yes it can be convenient if you know ALL of the apps and or services you'd like to use, however the entire internet being visible means putting small companies you have not yet heard of on nearly equal footing - giving them the chance to compete against the giants of commerce and sometimes (yes, sometimes it happens) WIN! The beauty of the inter…
Did I miss some new proposal that Ajit Pai has put forward? It is my understanding that "The rules Ajit Pai wants in place" were in place from sometime during the ninties or earlier, until 2015. That is, Ajit Pai merely wishes to undo a rule that was only in force from 2015 to the present. Am I mistaken? Because I think the world you say you don't want to live in is the one we actually did live in for most of the his…
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you're failing to ask one very important question. Why was the rule put in place in 2015?
Most regulations, like laws, are reactive in nature.
If our existing laws and regulations were good enough then why would we need to elect new law makers? Why would we even need them at all?
The fact is that people are constantly finding new and creative ways to exploit others and or ever evolving laws and regulations are a response to this exploitation.