Ajit Pai is right • Hacker News Board

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#181

Post by and0 » Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 6:32 PM UTC

eksu wrote: post #121

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…

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 a weird glitch with the libertarian worldview that I could never figure out; how a John Galt-like figure could be an unstoppable titan of industry but also be completely ruined by simple regulations.)

Also, why in "pre-2015 internet days" did we have zero competition / innovation in the ISP space? If you apply the same argument there, that pre-2015 wasn't any different so Title II isn't a big deal, then why can't we just keep it?

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#182

Post by apple4ever » Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 6:32 PM UTC

mr_spothawk wrote: post #85

ska wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that the desired effect is that the wired world becomes more like the wireless? I suppose it depends on your geographic location, but I suspect many North Americans would say: no thanks.

> Are you suggesting that the desired effect is that the wired world becomes more like the wireless? not at all... parent is merely pointing out that NetNeut doesn't apply to wireless.

And in fact Title II also provides a huge out for wired providers to ignore NN.

NN supporters really should read up on Title II, because they would be opposed to it.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#183

Post by lightbyte » Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 6:32 PM UTC

throwaway23497 wrote: post #113

zaksoup wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a weekly listener of Ben Thompson’s (the author) podcast, exponent, and it’s bizarre that he’s making this argument. Many of the last few episodes have made the point that over-burdensome regulation on Facebook would have the affect of harming small businesses’ abilities to advertise themselves along side large incumbents. It’s strange to see him make what appears to be the opposite argument here. Your point is w…

But he's making the same argument that you say he was making on his podcast. Regulation has a cost. The article literally states: "To believe that Chairman Pai is right is not to be against net neutrality; rather, it is to believe that the FCC’s 2015 approach was mistaken." The FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate ISP's as the law is written. To get around this in 2015 they "reclassified" ISP's from information…

>To get around this in 2015 they "reclassified" ISP's from information services to telecommunications services.

telecommunication: Any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writings, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems (CS). [1]

It sure sounds like ISP's should in fact be classified as telecommunications services to me.

[1] https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/oth/02/02/S02020000244501P... - Article 1.3

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#184

Post by ABCLAW » Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 6:32 PM UTC

colept wrote: post #151

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?

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?

No, the argument is worse than that because it is intentionally inaccurate. The re-framing it aims to perform is misleading and distracts from the issue.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#185

Post by nickpp » Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 6:33 PM UTC

mfringel wrote: post #153

nickpp wrote: post #99

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.

[citation needed]

Do you seriously need a citation for that idea? Why do you think govts exist? Why do all those smart politicians take those fairly crappy paid govt jobs? From the goodness of their hearts?!

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#186

Post by clairity » Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 6:33 PM UTC

this is a bit off-topic, but... ben makes a good point when he says regulations is about trade-offs, but the kind of knee-jerk "i hate regualations" sentiment in this article is a real turn off. case in point:

> "A classic example of this phenomenon is restaurants: who could possibly be against food safety? 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."

yes, regulatory capture sucks, but y'know, just kinda maybe, most of those restaurants that would have been created in a lax regluatory environment are exactly the ones you don't want? the kind that don't care about structural integrity or food safety or having a bathroom? he's focusing only on the costs, not the benefits, to justify his argument that regulations are bad. trade-offs have 2 sides: costs and benefits.

the problem isn't the 14 permits (which represent the things we want) but the 9 months it takes the bureaucracy to issue them. that 9 months, representing pure negative cash flow, is the onerous bit. make regulatory agencies issue/deny permits within 2 business days (so maybe it takes a month to get all your permits in place) and we won't see this kind of misplaced hate for regulations.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#187

Post by passive » Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 6:34 PM UTC

awj wrote: post #130

Shivetya wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

prior to the rule change in 2014 did we have such a problem? I recall the days of my choices in a highly regulated environment of being ISDN or T1. Provided I could even get either at my home. The issue I have is one of perception. People are magically convinced that NN will grant them all sorts of benefits but no one seems to agree with what they are. I can almost guarantee one thing, continue as is and the rate bro…

> prior to the rule change in 2014 did we have such a problem? No, we didn't, mostly because ISPs didn't have the technical capability or demonstrate the intent to violate net neutrality. We didn't need rules to stop people from doing something they were simply incapable of doing. Once they got that ability, and showed signs they would use it, we needed the rules. The better question here is why are ISPs lobbying so…

This is mostly very good, but it wasn't a lack of technical capability that kept the ISPs in line. It was the continued threat of having net neutrality legislation updated to apply to them (or worse, for them, having internet access regulated completely as a public service).

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#188

Post by throwaway23497 » Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 6:34 PM UTC

colept wrote: post #151

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?

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 saftey features that are poping up in cars? Those don't exist because they were regulated into existence. They are there because the market wants them people want them and will pay money for them so the industry is responding to it.

Regulations are for addressing tragedies of the commons, externalities, and market failures. Your smoking metaphor is a GOOD example because there are externalities that can't be addressed by the market. But this belief that companies whole purpose isn't to give it's customers what they want (yes so they can make a profit) is bonkers to me.

Now if you want to talk about how a lot of ISP's have a quasi-monopoly, then hell yes let's have that discussion. I'm right there with you, and those companies have done a lot to try and prevent creative solutions to the last mile problem(municipal fiber). Those are the sorts of things the FCC should be working to straiten out.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#189

Post by crankylinuxuser » Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 6:34 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #117

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, they already do. With NN gone, you could have Facebook not just paying to zero-rate traffic, but to actively "double-rate" or "elimi-nate" traffic to competitors. Hard to get in if your traffic's killed weeks or months in. And it makes acquisition nice and cheap - "Well, nobody's using your services, I'll give you $50k".

This is already how it is de-facto . Anyone who has done web promotion knows that if Google decides you shouldn't get traffic anymore, you don't get traffic anymore. Platform control is at the center of every tech company's goal because it makes them the kingmakers, and if there's a killer new feature from an up-and-coming startup, they can and will shamelessly copy it into their platform and neuter the startup in th…

Yep. And its treated as a "Rights issue" with the respective companies whom do this. Of course, only the behemoths' rights are protected.

      "Google's not required to index your site."
      "Facebook isn't required to allow you to talk to people."
      "Microsoft doesn't have to allow your website to exist on Azure."
      "Amazon disagreed with your business plan as it competes with them. You're kicked off AWS."

Sure, they have the "right" to maintain their business. The problem is, when they run as Kingmaker, they should be held to a higher standard of law. We already have this jurisprudence, known as Tortuous Interference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference . Lets start enforcing it, when they do things like "Interfere/Clone/Absorb" or "Embrace/Enhance/Extinguish".

Getting "Netscaped" should qualify under Tortious Interference, and should bring swift remedies. Because when the big players provide a stable interface and set of service, without discrimination, that levels the playing field for more players to get in and do cool things. With their Axe hanging over others heads, why bother playing the game?

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#190

Post by m0ther » Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 6:34 PM UTC

awj wrote: post #130

Shivetya wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

prior to the rule change in 2014 did we have such a problem? I recall the days of my choices in a highly regulated environment of being ISDN or T1. Provided I could even get either at my home. The issue I have is one of perception. People are magically convinced that NN will grant them all sorts of benefits but no one seems to agree with what they are. I can almost guarantee one thing, continue as is and the rate bro…

> prior to the rule change in 2014 did we have such a problem? No, we didn't, mostly because ISPs didn't have the technical capability or demonstrate the intent to violate net neutrality. We didn't need rules to stop people from doing something they were simply incapable of doing. Once they got that ability, and showed signs they would use it, we needed the rules. The better question here is why are ISPs lobbying so…

Consider also that the major ISPs are more desperate for new income now than they have ever been. Especially the cable TV providers.

I would have a hard time believing that they are NOT looking to compete directly with us (actual information services); considering the massive advantages they are technically capable of providing their own hypothetical services while they own the pipes. I imagine they won't do a very good job of it, considering how easily they can throttle, manipulate packets of, introduce latency to, and just plain break competition (or anything they don't like). Or they'll just take the easy route and tax both ends and sell your personal information to advertisers.

Dystopian future, here we come!

The only silver lining I can imagine is that we may get LAN parties back. I miss LAN parties. Everything else about this very likely version of the future is pretty depressing.

Maybe next the water companies will lobby not to be utilities anymore and provide clean, and mostly clean water. $20 premium for water guaranteed not to cause brain-damage.