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

251–260 of 316 posts

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#251

Post by jack9 »

ABCLAW wrote: post #238
jack9 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, the argument is worse than that because it is intentionally inaccurate. Seems on the nose to me shrug

Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. See the following summary or check any of the synopses in the thread about the historical background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... You aren't going back in time. The FCC will not have the tools it did prior to Title II enactment to enforce NN. This is WHY Title II…

> Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue.

I have, so that's not compelling. I'm interpreting the statement in the proper context, at a practical level. We're a little far removed from the statement, so look at it again:

That argument is akin to saying "let's strip the regulations because ___ wasn't so bad before."

That's correct in context. Of course you have to start with some new (Ajit's plan isn't just remove Title II) and some pre-existing conditions. The consequences he posits are unrealistic because technical capability is different (but he won't address that). There's not much to say when opposition spokesholes starts taking a purposefully phrased metaphor literally as a premise. SMH

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#252

Post by dragonwriter »

thehardsphere wrote: post #31
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…

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…

> It is my understanding that "The rules Ajit Pai wants in place" were in place from sometime during the ninties or earlier, until 2015.

No. I mean, I guess the complete absence of general broadband rules prior to 2004 might be what Pai wants to return to; but 2004-2010 had a pro-neutrality approach at FCC that he courts stopped in 2010, and 2010-2014 had an approach that the courts stopped in 2014, pointing to Title II as he available basis for the sort of regulation that the FCC had pursued. 2015 saw the FCC follow the court’s guidance and base regulations in Title II.

Most of the history of the commercially-significant, publicly-used internet have been under FCC neutrality enforcement, for which the only viable basis in the wake of 2010 and 2014 court decisions is Title II, which Pai wishes to abandon.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#253

Post by dgreensp »

dgreensp wrote: post #207
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…

I forgot another: I think at one point the author attributes the uproar over net neutrality to “the media.”

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#254

Post by libertyEQ »

ABCLAW wrote: post #238
jack9 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, the argument is worse than that because it is intentionally inaccurate. Seems on the nose to me shrug

Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. See the following summary or check any of the synopses in the thread about the historical background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... You aren't going back in time. The FCC will not have the tools it did prior to Title II enactment to enforce NN. This is WHY Title II…

Title II goes back to 1934[0], and it is what allowed Ma Bell to stagnate for 50 years, thwarting any innovation and competition in the space (which is why we had to break it up in the '80s).

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934#Str...

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#255

Post by jakelarkin »

jack9 wrote: post #191
jakelarkin wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ... ISPs are a monopoly, This is already the case. Google's inability to push fiber everywhere shows the market is demonstrably closed. It's so cost ineffective due to corruption and in-place infrastructure, that it's an effective monopoly. This is why I have between 0-2 providers to choose from, depending on where I go in the US.

the technicalities I was referring to is that the federal anti-trust laws have been interpreted (contorted) to disregard regional monopolies. If Verizon, ATT & Comcast each own 30% of the national market, non-overlapping regions, even if customers in those regions have zero choice of broadband provider, the ISPs are not technically a monopoly in terms of regulations that can be applied.

Another problem is that anti-trust law does not really regard for speed/quality/cost of service for internet. If your home is served for internet by Comcast at 50 Mbps or ATT DSL at 1Mbps or expensive high-latency satellite at 3 Mbps, well that's not a monopoly even though Comcast is really your only choice for what is socially considered a normal internet speed.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#256

Post by ABCLAW »

jack9 wrote: post #251
ABCLAW wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. See the following summary or check any of the synopses in the thread about the historical background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... You aren't going back in time. The FCC will not have the tools it did prior to Title II enactment to enforce NN. This is WHY Title II…

> Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. I have, so that's not compelling. I'm interpreting the statement in the proper context, at a practical level. We're a little far removed from the statement, so look at it again: That argument is akin to saying "let's strip the regulations because ___ wasn't so bad before." That's correct in contex…

No, it isn't correct in context.

There's an implicit premise that it's alright to strip regulations to return to the prior state because you will return to the prior state. But in this case you won't return to the prior state (see the regulatory history I pointed you to), which is where the problem is.

If we were going back to the defacto 2015 internet, no one would care. But we aren't doing that. Pretending that we are by framing the issue as a rollback is intentionally deceitful by people who know better.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#257

Post by pseudalopex »

throwaway23497 wrote: post #219
stinky613 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>which operated over phone lines... which meant they were covered by Title II. Do you have a source on this?? I've seen this claim made a few times in this thread and have been unable to find anything to back it up. I was under the impression that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 dictated that all ISP's were information services and exempted them from common-carrier and the like. The phone services themselves were…

In 1996, "ISP" usually meant a third-party information service that used the phone company's lines. In the mid-2000s, the FCC reclassified DSL and cable lines as information services. That probably wasn't what Congress intended in 1996, but the Supreme Court ruled that the law was ambiguous.[1] That all but eliminated competition, so now "ISP" usually means a company that operates its own last-mile infrastructure, and talking about how things used to be gets confusing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommuni...

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#258

Post by treis »

lovehashbrowns wrote: post #58

I don't want an ISP to push ANY apps that won't count against your data cap. How does that serve to promote competition? How is any company going to win over Facebook/Spotify/Youtube/etc. when every single ISP offers an internet plan that doesn't count data when used with those apps? That's outrageous, on top of the obvious fact that ISPs will tend to push their own services over others, or price-gouge apps to be pro…

How is any company going to win over Amazon with Prime free shipping and 2 hour delivery?

Being a big incumbent comes with advantages in every market. Even with Net Neutrality and no zero rating, how are you going to come in and beat Netflix, Google, or Amazon with their thousands of edge servers and exclusive content?

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#259

Post by jakelarkin »

hammock wrote: post #104
jakelarkin wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 This is false. Under US antitrust law, /monopolistic behavior/ (that is, behavior that tends to create monopolies), e.g. predatory pricing and very large mergers, is what's generally regulated. It's not actually illegal to be a monopoly per se, and you don't have to be a monopoly to fall afoul of antitrust law.

right but typically the company has to be close to a monopoly for the federal gov't to scrutinize their actions. and the bureaucratic/legal bar for monopoly has been contorted quite far from the common sense one, especially in the case of ISPs.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#260

Post by dnautics »

jakelarkin wrote: post #255
jack9 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only if ... ISPs are a monopoly, This is already the case. Google's inability to push fiber everywhere shows the market is demonstrably closed. It's so cost ineffective due to corruption and in-place infrastructure, that it's an effective monopoly. This is why I have between 0-2 providers to choose from, depending on where I go in the US.

the technicalities I was referring to is that the federal anti-trust laws have been interpreted (contorted) to disregard regional monopolies. If Verizon, ATT & Comcast each own 30% of the national market, non-overlapping regions, even if customers in those regions have zero choice of broadband provider, the ISPs are not technically a monopoly in terms of regulations that can be applied. Another problem is that anti-t…

it seems like that's reasonable. It shouldn't be up to the federal government to regulate regional monopolies, it should be up to the state governments.
Post reply on HN