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

201–210 of 316 posts

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#201

Post by dd36 »

apple4ever wrote: post #177
dd36 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FCC is exempting the ISPs from those archaic rules. Who is going to challenge the FCC on that? So this guy is arguing that NN is bad under Title II so we should pass a different law to regulate it? So new regulations without a long history of case law? And that’s less burdensome?

Yes exactly. Then we have a properly written law to address the issue, not shoehorn in the issue into an old unrelated law. And that is much less burdensome. The FCC is right now exempting the ISPs, but that could change under a new administration, and that should be greatly feared.

That’s a red herring.

Then pass the law. Title II is the only solution until then per the courts. If the ISPs are exempt from the archaic rules, then there’s literally nothing but imaginary future harm. As where we’ve seen real abuses by ISPs. Pai is not acting in the public interest.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#202

Post by npsimons »

exabrial wrote: post #103
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…

> AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet Just curious why this is a net neutrality issue? Carriers have a say whether or not they can block things on the Google Play app store. I believe this specific issue was the carrier's controlled the Secure Element in the phone, and wanted to license access to Google. No idea how this is a Net Neutrality issue.

> Carriers have a say whether or not they can block things on the Google Play app store.

Why do you believe this is okay?

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#203

Post by dd36 »

manderson89 wrote: post #199
apple4ever wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the solution isn't Title II, but a new law. Title II is terrible, and should be opposed both by NN supporters AND opponents.

Would a law be better than Title II? Sure. Let me know when congress gets around to that. I'm not holding my breath. Until then, Title II seems like the only realistic option.

Exactly!

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#205

Post by jack9 »

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…

> what information would the Walton family need to take with them in their time machine to destroy Amazon from 1996-2015

Amazon was massively in the red (investment liabilities) until they had enough extra capital to start the 2004ish AWS initiative. Having dealt with AMZ techs in the 90s, I certainly didn't think they would do any better than Pets.com did.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#206

Post by cptskippy »

thehardsphere wrote: post #165
cptskippy wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Actually, I am asking that. Several other commentors have asserted that "the world changed" a few years before the rule passed, yet nobody has really explained in detail how. So far I've gotten a hypothetical about Wal-Mart paying ISPs to destroy Amazon, which didn't actually happen. (Though I haven't read other responses yet, so maybe there's something more here I just have missed.) But, let's take a closer look at…

The example that immediately come to mind involves Netflix and Comcast. I believe it was these shenanigans that prompted the rule changes in 2015.

This article gives a good overview of the strategy Comcast employed.

https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-t...

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#207

Post by dgreensp »

kodablah wrote: post #23

Arg. I feel like articles like this are calling me stupid with some statements. Like this doozy: "T-Mobile treats all data the same, some data just doesn’t cost money" I guess I'm too stupid to understand what "same" means. Or: "Zero-rating [...] Customers loved it" That's not enough. The argument is about small providers conforming to T-Mobile. What customers think is irrelevant I'm afraid. Then the author goes on t…

Exactly. This is like listening to Trump talk about Obamacare. Oh, he agrees with the principles — more than the next guy! — but we’ve taken a massive step in the wrong direction and need to repeal it.

I lost track of all the slimy rhetorical techniques in this article. FUD about the “cost of regulations” by talking about restaurants in SF. Saying that T-Mobile’s rise was good for competition, so I guess zero-rating is a good thing after all (without arguing that it was specifically zero-rating that led to T-Mobile’s rise). Saying the “only future we have to fear” is one where these regulations stay... really?? Just because he has a hand-wavy argument they might be bad, or at least unnecessary?

Oh, let’s not forget, the argument that regulations as written don’t eliminate all possible ways to violate the spirit of the law, so they don’t do any good at all. Law can be updated. If there was a legal loophole that let people murder each other, would we say the laws against murder are pointless?

Zero-rating is not aligned with net neutrality, even if it’s currently allowed by a loophole, and if it benefits some customer or some company in some way. Hemming and hawing about it is just kicking up smoke.

The author wants to drive a wedge between the positions of “net neutrality” and “ISPs are telecommunication carriers,” and I don’t see it. Or he wants them to be neutral carriers but not have it be legally enforced. Or first repeal the current enforcement, and then talk about enforcing it some other way. Slimy, slimy, slimy.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#208

Post by masklinn »

thehardsphere wrote: post #175
masklinn wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is funny, because the pre-2015 rules were only put in place in 2005, downgrading from a much more stringent regulatory environment than the post-2015 one. And by funny I mean nonsensical. Furthermore the 2015 move was undertaken because since 2005 the FCC had been enforcing Net Neutrality rules under Title I, but Verizon ultimately sued and in 2014 the courts decided the FCC did not have the authority to enforce…

Really? It was my understanding that this was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Am I mistaken?

Likely confused rather than mistaken. The Telecommunications Act set up the various titles and regulatory regimes, but the FCC decides which regime applies to whom, and until 2002 (Cable) and 2005 (dial-up and DSL) ISPs were classified as Title II, which is where the FCC put them back in 2015.

And the reason the FCC moved them back to Title II is that in 2014 the courts ruled the FCC's long-standing Net Neutrality rules could not actually be enforced under Title I.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#209

Post by dd36 »

ABCLAW wrote: post #197
apple4ever wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the solution isn't Title II, but a new law. Title II is terrible, and should be opposed both by NN supporters AND opponents.

Perfect is the enemy of good. I'm sure there's a utopian piece of legislation which would be specifically tailored to ISP regulation. Unfortunately it doesn't exist. Why remove Title II prior to getting that magical piece of legislation finished? Because it is PROFITABLE $$$$. It has nothing to do with an intellectual argument about the merits of Title II vs. other regulatory control mechanisms. If it was, we'd be de…

Yes! Where’s the law? The money behind these moves doesn’t want NN. If a law is passed, this move by Pai is unnecessary. Sadly, it is likely any law that is proposed is weak and full of loopholes. But it will have a spectacular Orwellian title.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#210

Post by 013a »

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…

And you've entirely missed the point that there is always sacrifice; you glimpsed the green pastures on the other side and are convinced the only bad in this world is on your side of the fence, somewhere distant over the horizon. You're asking for an umbrella on a clear day, for the fear that its raining somewhere in this world and the water would be your end.
Post reply on HN