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

111–120 of 316 posts

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#111

Post by rtkwe »

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…

> Surely if they are overpriced someone will step up and undercut them.

Then where are the real competitors to Comcast and Time Warner/Spectrum the consistently most hated companies in the US? Why does the US pay so much more for so much worse service than most everywhere?

Through extensive lobbying and regulators unwilling/unable to enforce the terms of infrastructure handouts the existing players are in pretty plum positions where they're able to drop prices a lot whenever a competitor starts to come in and thus starve them out. Look at how Comcast was magically able to provide double speeds for the same price as soon as Google Fiber started to move in in (iirc) Arizona.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#112

Post by popcornarsonist »

> Remember that ISPs bear massive fixed costs, which means they are motivated to maximize the number of end users. That means not cutting off sites and apps those customers want. Moreover, even in the worst case scenario where ISPs did decide to charge Google and Netflix and whatnot, they could price discriminate and charge the Netflix competitor nothing at all!

I don't really get this argument. If the ISPs are able to get another revenue stream from content providers, such as Netflix, etc, then this doesn't really follow. There could even be a world where they care more about content providers than consumer! Also: they're not necessarily going to "cut off" these other apps, they could simply throttle them, making that app seem to work poorly. So, the consumer just stays with Netflix, who is paying the ISP.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#113

Post by throwaway23497 »

zaksoup wrote: post #71
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…

I’m a weekly listener of Ben Thompson’s (the author) podcast, exponent, and it’s bizarre that he’s making this argument. Many of the last few episodes have made the point that over-burdensome regulation on Facebook would have the affect of harming small businesses’ abilities to advertise themselves along side large incumbents. It’s strange to see him make what appears to be the opposite argument here. Your point is w…

But he's making the same argument that you say he was making on his podcast. Regulation has a cost.

The article literally states: "To believe that Chairman Pai is right is not to be against net neutrality; rather, it is to believe that the FCC’s 2015 approach was mistaken."

The FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate ISP's as the law is written. To get around this in 2015 they "reclassified" ISP's from information services to telecommunications services. This allowed them expansive authority over ISP's. It also applies a bunch of archaic rules that were meant for ma-bell and in no way apply to modern internet services.

If network neutrality is important to you then call your congressmen and tell them to pass a law that actually codifies it.

If you think your ISP is being a bad actor, then send a report to the FTC. You know the agency that's tasked with preventing and punishing anti-competitive behavior....

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#114

Post by EGreg »

"So to recount: one Portugal story is made up, and the other declared that a 10GB family plan with an extra 10GB for a collection of apps of your choosing for €25/month ($30/month) is a future to be feared;"

So, to recount: this author doesn't understand the concept of phasing something in, and thinks that if something doesn't appear all at once then it will never appear.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#115

Post by mullen »

zaksoup wrote: post #32

Re: food safety... > Ayn Rand and Ron Paul walk into a bar. The bartender serves them tainted alcohol. They die. The market reacts and the bar closes because nobody goes there anymore. Ayn Rand and Ron Paul are still dead.

Actually, it is really:

> Ayn Rand and Ron Paul walk into a bar. The bartender serves them tainted alcohol. They die. The bar stays open because it pays Yelp to remove critical reviews, buys off the local newspaper, pays the local ISP to block websites criticizing the bar and runs a drink specials that people just can't pass up. Ayn Rand and Ron Paul are still dead.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#116

Post by dominotw »

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…

Hope I don't immediately get downvoted for this comment.

Wouldn't the right "fix" for the issue be encouraging more competition and figuring out why we only have 1 or 2 providers . That way we won't need an extra govt rule to protect neutrality and the market will solve this issue on its own?

I live in a mid size indian city and we have about 8-10 providers ( not sure if they are just subcontractors or what).

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#117

Post by cookiecaper »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #80
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: deleted

Right now, they already do. With NN gone, you could have Facebook not just paying to zero-rate traffic, but to actively "double-rate" or "elimi-nate" traffic to competitors. Hard to get in if your traffic's killed weeks or months in. And it makes acquisition nice and cheap - "Well, nobody's using your services, I'll give you $50k".

This is already how it is de-facto. Anyone who has done web promotion knows that if Google decides you shouldn't get traffic anymore, you don't get traffic anymore. Platform control is at the center of every tech company's goal because it makes them the kingmakers, and if there's a killer new feature from an up-and-coming startup, they can and will shamelessly copy it into their platform and neuter the startup in the next release. Getting "Netscaped" is just routine business in tech now.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#118

Post by deadmetheny »

metalliqaz wrote: post #75

Ajit Pai isn't right, but here's why it doesn't even matter: he's ignoring the will of the people. Under his chairmanship the FCC has (1)intentionally made it more difficult to comment on proceedings, (2) ignored the blatant and illegal automated responses that flooded the comment system without the knowledge of the people whose names were used, (3) tried to suppress participation by faking a DDOS, (4) obstructed inv…

>We need the protection of NN, it's the only thing keeping the entrepreneurial spirit alive in this country

Maybe in startup land, but this is blatantly untrue. The entrepreneurial spirit is doing just fine, it's just that people are starting unsexy sustainable small businesses and not SV-style startups. Losing NN isn't going to be an existential crisis for a lot of businesses like that, although it would most likely still be painful.

No disagreements on your larger points regarding the FCC and NN. It's disgusting that there's so much widespread dislike among the populace for the ISP-centric direction everything is going.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#119

Post by Chardok »

gormo2 wrote: post #16

Ajit Pai did nothing wrong and shouldn't be attacked with as much personal vitriol as we're seeing.

Well what else are they going to do? Send comments to the FCC? How did that work for them?

Ajit is absolutely ignoring the majority message and there is absolutely nothing your average citizen can do about it. They can't vote on it, and the 3/5 Republicans have already made up their mind a long time ago.

Just to be clear, I think the personal attacks are wrong and uncivilized, but I understand that when there is no civilized outlet for people, they are going to act out.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#120

Post by disantlor »

dominotw wrote: post #116
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…

Hope I don't immediately get downvoted for this comment. Wouldn't the right "fix" for the issue be encouraging more competition and figuring out why we only have 1 or 2 providers . That way we won't need an extra govt rule to protect neutrality and the market will solve this issue on its own? I live in a mid size indian city and we have about 8-10 providers ( not sure if they are just subcontractors or what).

that's a good and totally fair point, but which should come first?
Post reply on HN