Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ajit Pai is right

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 316 posts

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#91

Post by dd36 »

Shivetya wrote: post #65
zbruhnke wrote: post #6

This 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…

prior to the rule change in 2014 did we have such a problem? I recall the days of my choices in a highly regulated environment of being ISDN or T1. Provided I could even get either at my home. The issue I have is one of perception. People are magically convinced that NN will grant them all sorts of benefits but no one seems to agree with what they are. I can almost guarantee one thing, continue as is and the rate bro…

We’ve had NN since beginning. People don’t want the internet to become cable TV.

There is nothing magical about it. People know what the ISPs want to do and they prefer the pipes remain pipes and not become toll filters. There’s a lot of money for the ISPs in this rent seeking. Hence the never ending push to undermine NN.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#92

Post by api »

cbsmith wrote: post #25
adamnemecek wrote: post #2

> 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…

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.

Yes, and we want to do everything we can to keep the wired world from being as shitty as the wireless world.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#93

Post by [deleted] »

r3bl wrote: post #49

1. QZ (nor Tim Wu) never claimed that the screenshot in their article is from Portugal. That false premise alone takes a significant amount of introduction to the article. In fact, QZ's article even explains the same thing that this article does (see my second point). 2. I completely agree with the author that the Portugal example is a bad one. That example shows zero rating, not "pay $5 to access certain websites",…

[deleted]

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#94

Post by tuchsen »

nindalf wrote: post #86
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://web.archive.org/web/19961229070003/http://walmart.co...

This is what Walmart.com looked like in 96.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#95

Post by stinky613 »

Shivetya wrote: post #65
zbruhnke wrote: post #6

This 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…

prior to the rule change in 2014 did we have such a problem? I recall the days of my choices in a highly regulated environment of being ISDN or T1. Provided I could even get either at my home. The issue I have is one of perception. People are magically convinced that NN will grant them all sorts of benefits but no one seems to agree with what they are. I can almost guarantee one thing, continue as is and the rate bro…

I recall the days of dial-up & DSL internet, where I had multiple national ISPs to choose from, as well as several local ISPs... all of which operated over phone lines... which meant they were covered by Title II.

This notion that everything was unregulated until two years ago is counterfactual.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#96

Post by ngoede »

DigitalJack wrote: post #63
RexM wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found this list https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this ki…

Every single item in this list was rectified prior to 2015. This is effectively showing title 1 is sufficient to address these harms.

Except that at least two of these resulted in Comcast and then Verizon suing and getting to continue doing each of them because the courts said they couldn't regulate against those practices unless they became Common Carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v....

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#97

Post by masklinn »

jakelarkin wrote: post #52
Sumaso wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the rules Ajit Pai wants in place were to be in place when Amazon got started its likely Wal-Mart could have paid to simply make them disappear for most internet providers by "buying" the right to e-commerce traffic. Isn't this covered by anti-trust laws?

only if walmart and ISPs are a monopoly, which by very technical legal arguments, they're not. having to pay off ISPs to the tune of millions for network access to e-commerce customers, prevents Amazon from ever getting started selling books in the 90s

> only if walmart and ISPs are a monopoly, which by very technical legal arguments, they're not.

And if the regulatory climate of the US was to enforce this sort of regs, which it isn't.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#98

Post by NickGerleman »

I find it alarming, and somewhat ironic, this article was removed from HN temporarily for it being repeatedly flagged. I don't fully agree with the article, but using a mechanism to prevent abuse to hide an opinion that you disagree with is akin to the forms of censorship net neutrality is meant to prevent.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#99

Post by nickpp »

cptskippy wrote: post #90
thehardsphere wrote: post #31

Earlier 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 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…

For the same reason most regulations are made: to increase the government's power while pretending to protect you, but in fact increasing your dependence of said government.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#100

Post by disp1 »

thehardsphere wrote: post #87
zbruhnke wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I recall that L3 was shaking down netflix in that that time period. This is what I was able to find quickly...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-t...

Sorry for the paywall. there are many sites that refer to the episode, but they may not all be qualified as journalism.

Post reply on HN