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

301–310 of 316 posts

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#301

Post by michaelbrave »

dragonwriter wrote: post #236
thehardsphere wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 world changed because the courts struck down the ability of the FCC to enforce net neutrality principles through case-by-case actions in 2010, and struck down the Title I net neutrality regulations that were adopted in 2010 in 2014. The US has had the FCC pursuing net neutrality enforcement for most of the time since 2004, but the tools have changed because of court rulings, which have left Title II the only tool…

What most forget is that making them title II was a rollback in itself back to pre-2002, 2005 internet.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#302

Post by winston_smith »

and0 wrote: post #181
eksu wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there isn’t much ‘clash’ (debate term) between what you’re saying and Ben Thompson’s article. Ben isn’t attacking the concept of Net Neutrality, he’s instead attacking Title II classification. Ben puts forward a few arguments. First, he starts off with an offensive piece of matter, that regulatory burden from the 2015 Title II classification has a cost, and that cost is felt innovators who want to enter t…

You can't compare the OP's point, that a tiered internet service would hurt small businesses doing business OVER the internet, to potential "new innovators" in the ISP space being burdened by regulations. That's an absurd false equivalence. (I'm also lost as to how a company that had the ability or tenacity to compete with Comcast / Verizon would look at basic regulation requirements / legal costs and give up? That's…

I don't have an opinion about what you and the parent are arguing, but could I talk you out of using the "false equivalence" phrasing? I find it creates more heat than light.

"False equivalency" (sic) was coined when a pundit complained about Jon Stewart's speech at the famous rally. Jon said that people who disagree have many of the same hopes and fears, and the pundit wanted to get back to being polarized. So he's misrepresenting Jon's statement as "all sides are the same" and then refuting it with "no, my side is better".

So for "false equivalence" to make sense as a refutation, the original claim would have to be "these things are equal in every way", so that we can just say "false!", but why would someone ever make that claim? Nobody ever says "this is a true equivalence", so we shouldn't expect "this is a false equivalence" to be a useful refutation.

But please don't let me stop you from pushing back on crappy arguments. It's great to point out ways that a purported similarity doesn't hold up! Just watch out for the loaded term.

(Likewise, "you can't compare" is sort of nonsensical -- all pairs of things can be compared, and they're almost always different in some way, which is why they have different names! Usually people just mean "those things are actually pretty different in the ways that matter here", but it sounds like they're saying "I forbid you to compare them" or "Those things have nothing in common whatsoever!")

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#303

Post by nkurz »

kodablah wrote: post #289
nkurz wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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. It made sense to me, but maybe I'm the one misunderstanding. Let's try a hypothetical parallel: PhoneCo sells you 1000 minutes of phone service, meaning that you can make 1000 minutes of calls without additional charge. But as a "perk" (to encourage you to convince your friends to switch Phon…

> But as a "perk" And there's where you went off "same". It's abusing the term "same". I of course understand the author, but he is mincing words. So yes, it is unreasonable to say that in response to "Does DataCo treat all data the same"...or at least you have realized that latter part ("some data just doesn't cost money") must always be present as a caveat. What it leads to, inevitably, is prioritizing the data on…

Rather than disagreeing about "same", we might be disagreeing about "treat". To me, treating all data/calls the same means that there is no difference in speed or reliability. I don't see it as automatically meaning that they are all billed the same. In some contexts this can be misleading, but I didn't think it was within the Stratechery article. I'm much more bothered by "unlimited" meaning anything but unlimited, and like the author, more concerned about the lack of a viable competitive landscape for broadband than with differential billing.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#304

Post by lovehashbrowns »

libertyEQ wrote: post #300
lovehashbrowns wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the government forces companies to do things. How awful. Here are some of the many awful things the government forces companies to do: - ADA - Non-discrimination - Antitrust - Health regulations How authoritarian! I'm glad that the spooky A-word is scaring you into letting ISPs continue their money-grubbing practices. I'm done with that business. I hope NN sticks around and their lobbying efforts go down the dra…

If that is the extent of your understanding of authoritarianism vs. liberty, that's your prerogative. I believe there is more nuance involved than your comment indicates. If your goal is to create more trump voters, you are off to a good start.

Oh my! Now I'm curious. How does whatever I said create more trump voters?

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#305

Post by croon »

libertyEQ wrote: post #279
dragonwriter wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's very specifically advocating going back to the structure between 2005 and 2015. 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…

In this very subthread, we have seasoned HNers, all of whom I've agreed with over the years of reading comments from all 3 of you. I believe you all have a sound grasp of logic, and I think there is some common ground you could all agree on. It does worry me that you all aren't having a productive discussion, and are seemingly talking past each other. If such reasonable and knowledgeable people (as evidenced by HN hi…

Could you elaborate on who you mean, and what facts you think are unclear?

Also your account is 46 days old, so I'm unsure what you know about seasoned HNers.

Sorry if I'm incorrect, but I read your comment as trying to seed distrust, as if the issue isn't clear and no side is right.

This is incorrect.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#306

Post by croon »

nickpp wrote: post #180
cptskippy wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't something similar be said of companies? Companies what regulations repealed: to increase the company's power while pretending to protect you, but in fact increasing your dependence of said company. Why do you have more faith in companies than a government? Do you honestly believe that market forces can sway mega corporations?

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…

How many water pipes do you have running to your house? How many electricity lines?

Do you want 5 different ones of each, so you can have market choices? What if there's a really good 6th contender, you mind digging up your yard once again so you can get their service?

Oh, you only have one of each, but still have a choice between providers? That's a great "natural free market", I must hear more about how it came to be. Do please tell.

You need community owned, or privately owned but regulated last mile access, so that multiple ISPs can access you as a customer, for there to be a working market. That means government involvement.

I might also add a constant fact: You are the government.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#307

Post by pas »

hammock wrote: post #261
steveax wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WRT antitrust, what’s generally regulated these days is nothing, nada, zilch.

I wonder if immigration hardliners feel the same way about lack of enforcement at the border.

They sure do, but that doesn't make it any more true.

"Assuming that the estimates are correct, got aways have fallen significantly since 2006. In that year, Border Patrol estimated over 600,000 aliens successfully crossed the border and evaded USBP. By 2011, that number had evened out to just under 100,000, where it has remained until today."

https://cis.org/Huennekens/Enforcement-Estimates-DHS

Plus hardliners are very much disputing that some refugees are fleeing from real danger.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#308

Post by [deleted] »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #269
zzzeek wrote: post #160

> 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…

so...either San Francisco has no restaurants at all, or this argument is complete garbage. Or maybe you only get rich people and already successful chains opening new restaurants. Maybe you don't get a lot of first-time small business owners and innovative concepts because the barriers to entry are too high.

[deleted]

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#309

Post by 0xfeba »

nickpp wrote: post #221
0xfeba wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I used to drink raw milk as a child. It was delicious. I like making my own choices. I do not need to be protected from myself.

Congratulations. The other 99% of people do need to be protected. Remember, more than 90% of 30,000 of them kill themselves or others in car crashes each year due to driver error, in the US.

That number used to be much higher before safety standards were implemented. So while you can argue about specific standards and regulations, on the whole it's clear society has benefited greatly from them.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#310

Post by natural219 »

ABCLAW wrote: post #167
pbreit wrote: post #123

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?

No he isn't. Internet was fine in 2015 because the FCC was working fairly hard to prevent ISPs from shitting it up. Please read the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... As a side note. I can't help but feel like this comment is insincere - if it isn't, I apologize. Understanding enough about the issue to believe Pai's attempt is a rollback indicates that a poster would have read…

FUD is the correct call, sometimes.

http://clutchofthedeadhand.com/fud/

Post reply on HN