Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal” • Hacker News Board

Re: Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal”

#41

Post by valarauca1 » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:32 PM UTC

happytoexplain wrote: post #36

valarauca1 wrote: post #20

TBH it is hilarious we believe "net neutrality" exists in the first place. Peering agreements between ISP's at IPX's are rarely "fair or neuatral" as different ISP's have different carrying capacity, and will treat traffic from their own networks preferentially for technical reasons. But since <5k people understand BGP routing configuration we pretend it is neutral.

It's been my experience that all definitions of net neutrality explicitly allow prioritization for technical reasons (e.g. streaming). Is this fuzzier than I thought?

"technical reasons" is an awesome weasel word in the hands of the right c-level or legal representative.

Re: Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal”

#42

Post by TYPE_FASTER » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:32 PM UTC

From the transcript:

So in early August, we adopted a policy that would allow a single entity to do the requisite work on the utility pole—a policy commonly known as “one-touch make-ready.” This policy could substantially lower the cost and shorten the time to deploy broadband on utility poles.

But according to https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/fcc-gives-google...:

Despite today's vote, the FCC hurt the cause of faster pole attachment when it deregulated the broadband industry last year, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Legislative Counsel Ernesto Falcon. The FCC's anti-net neutrality vote removed the classification of broadband as a common carrier service—that now-repealed classification "ensure[d] that every broadband provider has the legal right to gain access to many of the poles that run along our roads," the EFF wrote last year.

"I wonder if the anti-net neutrality crowd understands that Title II's regulation of poles and conduit is now limited to telephone/cable TV thanks to [the] Restoring Internet Freedom Order," Falcon tweeted today. "The ISPs that are broadband-only will not get the benefit, thus limiting its positive impact."

Re: Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal”

#43

Post by yarrel » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

khazhou wrote: post #13

I would be interested to learn how Indian and Indian-American HN members regard him. Is he considered a source of pride within the community due to his accomplishments? Or is he an embarrassment due to decisions like Net Neutrality? Or, is it a complete no-op and the Indian/Indian-American community basically doesn't think about him either way? Edit: I'm not sure why the downvotes. There are very few (if any?) Indian…

You're postulating an imaginary hive mind on the part of "Indian-Americans" then asking how ethnically tribal it is.

It's like asking if whitey is proud of Donald Trump. The problems start before the question is halfway asked.

Re: Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal”

#44

Post by shmerl » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

For Pai, it's only legal when it serves his monopolistic masters. When it serves the people, it must be illegal. The only thing it poses a risk to, is monopoly abuse by Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon and the like. Which is exactly the point.

And Pai lost all power to preempt anything, when he himself removed FCC from overseeing ISPs and pushed that to FTC.

Re: Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal”

#45

Post by syntaxing » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:44 PM UTC

It's quite interesting how much the Trump administration is copying from the Reagan administration (admittedly, I was not alive during the Regan times so my info is coming from textbooks). The Trump administration is doing is essentially its own form of Trump Reaganomics mixed with his own Starve the beast playbook [1]. Though I feel like this new strategy is more to protect the self interests of the few around President Trump rather than to cut down the big government.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

Re: Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal”

#46

Post by JustSomeNobody » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:46 PM UTC

zwerdlds wrote: post #4

> "only the federal government can set regulatory policy in this area" Regulatory policy that apparently he wants to set - but specifically gave that ability to the FTC. Seems like he wants to have his cake and eat it too? Am I misunderstanding this?

He's trying to tie everything into a ball of legal twine that will take years to sort out. All the while, the ISPs will have free reign to do whatever they want.

Re: Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal”

#47

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

khazhou wrote: post #34

samuelg123 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think his actions are representative of what Indian people think; they’re just proof of his own greed.

I will clarify my question, since that is not what I was wondering.

[deleted]

Re: Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal”

#48

Post by FPGAhacker » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:52 PM UTC

whamlastxmas wrote: post #38

drfuchs wrote: post #35

Ah, the hypocrisy of the "States Rights" crowd: They're all for it, until they don't like what a state wants to do.

I don't think most conservatives who understand NN actually support it. It's just the entrenched political class who stands to benefit from it that support it.

I don’t know. I have mixed feelings on net neutrality. I’m sure I’m to the right of a lot of HN, based on comments, but I lean left on a few issues too.

I’ve recently moved to the greater Seattle area and where I live my choices for internet are Comcast and centurylink. I was pretty disappointed as I had fios at my last house.

In general principle I am pro letting Comcast throttle whatever. Mainly because of property rights. But at a personal level it would totally suck if they throttled Netflix to the point that it affected me.

But forcing Comcast to be “good enough” by law might be an adequate bandaid for the short term, it actually helps reinforce their local monopoly.

When a service is subpar, that opens the door for competition and disruption. Ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17948412

Chris is charging a lot for his service, but the differential from existing is enough he is surviving and growing.

When a service is good enough, competition has a harder time.

So giving the incumbents enough rope to hang themselves might be better in the longer term.

Re: Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal”

#49

Post by matkins » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:53 PM UTC

GW150914 wrote: post #2

This guy will just say anything, won’t he? I already knew he wasn’t a constitutional scholar, but this is rich even coming from a shill with as little self respect as Pai. The broader problem is that California's micromanagement poses a risk to the rest of the country. After all, broadband is an interstate service; Internet traffic doesn't recognize state lines. It follows that only the federal government can set reg…

You seem to be holding a grudge.

Re: Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal”

#50

Post by happytoexplain » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:55 PM UTC

valarauca1 wrote: post #41

happytoexplain wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been my experience that all definitions of net neutrality explicitly allow prioritization for technical reasons (e.g. streaming). Is this fuzzier than I thought?

"technical reasons" is an awesome weasel word in the hands of the right c-level or legal representative.

Of course, but that's me saying that as a shorthand. I'm referring to the actual definitions in practice. I would hope they don't say "for technical reasons" and leave it at that.