221–230 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes, damned that FDA and NHTSA for not letting me drink my raw milk while driving in a car without airbags. Clearly a power grab.
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.
First you draft a bill. Then you have a bunch of people debate the bill. Then you have the bill have a section which describes how it comes into force, listing deadlines, target dates for various provisions, etc. That way you can phase the Title II -> Legislation transfer smoothly.
That isn't what's happening here. There is no discussion about amending legislation, nor has the FCC discussed implementing non-Title II forms of Open Internet Style regulation.
Because they can't.
> Then you read about how San Francisco requires 14 permits that take 9 months to issue (plus a separate alcohol permit) and you wonder why anyone opens a restaurant at all (compounded by the fact that already-permitted restaurants have a vested interest in making the process more onerous over time). Multiply that burden by all of the restaurants that never get created and the cost is very large indeed. so...either S…
This piece is striking for it's clever dishonesty. He says he believes in NN while arguing in favor of zero-rating, which is by definition contrary to NN.
Dude totally ignores the fact that during the growth phase of the internet ISPs like Comcast and Time Warner did not also own major internet content and therefore had little incentive to be anticompetitive (HBO and Hulu).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't Pai just advocating going back to the pre-2015 regulatory structure? Was the internet really so bad prior to 2015?
He's very specifically advocating going back to the structure between 2005 and 2015. And there were lots of issues despite likely way less emboldened ISPs: https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7ej1nd/fcc_u... The 2015 move was actually because the FCC had been repeatedly challenged by bolder and bolder ISPs over its rules, and the courts ultimately stated that the FCC didn't have the authority to stop ISP…
The courts struck down the 2005-2010 structure in 2010, and the 2010-2014 structure in 2014. 2014-2015 was unregulated, but all actors knew that the FCC was going to come out with some new neutrality regulation, so no big player was going to put effort into exploiting the unregulated state and build an unsustainable business model around it.
It is impossible to return to any of the three states of neutrality enforcement that existed between 2005 and 2015. And Ajit Pai knows that, so if he's calling for that it is intensely dishonest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
I was stating a well-known fact, it stemmed from a time Google was trying to convince carriers to sell Android phones. It has little to do with net neutrality and I think it conflates the issue to something it isn't
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because I always have a choice with companies: they cannot be monopolies unless helped by governments. Startups and competitors will swiftly punish any bad player in a free market, thus compelling players to behave. The proof is all around me: everything good comes from companies: cars, computers, my house, my heating furnace, restaurant food, hotels, etc. Everything crappy and bad is related one way or another with…
First Title II doesn't make the government start offering Internet service, it is similar to FDA preventing companies to include poison in our food to cut cost (and you can be sure that especially the public companies would do that if they could. This happens when individual people are not liable and #1 goal of a public company is to improve earnings every quarter). I have an exercise for you right now. Let say you a…
Which is my original point: keep increasing that power...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s quite sad to see this getting upvotes. Upvotes don't necessarily mean agreement, it means that the community is interested in discussing the contents of the article. And including jabs like this does nothing but worsen that discussion.
I'm afraid the "flag" feature has been abused to mean disagreement in this case sadly. Hopefully the article becomes unflagged. EDIT: no longer flagged, yay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... That argument is akin to saying "let's strip the regulations because ___ wasn't so bad before." Should it be terrible in order for us to realize when regulations are in our best interest? Should we go back to cars without seatbelts because at one point it wasn't so bad? Should we de-regulate smoking because it wasn't really so bad in the 40's?
I readily acknowledge I'm attacking your metaphor and not your argument here, but I'm curious about your perspective because I don't understand it. You really think that if the government decided to stop regulating car safety tomorrow that car manufactures would STOP putting seatbelts and safety features in cars? You realize that seatbelts were invented by the industry right? You know all those cool new driver assist…
I'm in full agreement with you. I don't think anybody wants these companies to maintain their regional monopolies. From my point of view, removing NN is like gifting the ISPs the chance to further reward themselves for maintaining their monopoly. Make a few extra bucks while the rest of us work very, very hard to try and get rid of their monopolies. That doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather put NN into place now, force them to do the right thing in terms of traffic, AND work to dismantle this awful monopoly that they have.
Let's not pretend that forcing NN on them is like giving up on competition, because it's not. Even with them handling traffic in the most neutral way possible, we still have: shitty infrastructure, high prices, data caps, hidden fees, awful speeds, shitty customer service, predatory advertising, over-billing, etc. It's not like NN is gonna stay and suddenly everyone is okay with only having one viable ISP as an option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
> Wouldn't the right "fix" for the issue be encouraging more competition and figuring out why we only have 1 or 2 providers. Because when ISPs got moved from Title II to Title I in 2005 , it ended line-sharing requirements, which means entry into the market is extremely difficult (since you need to build your own physical network from scratch) and incumbents are free to grow as they please and "lobby"[0] against esse…