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

311–316 of 316 posts

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#311

Post by thehardsphere »

michaelbrave wrote: post #301
dragonwriter wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mean Title II was a means of imposing rules from pre-2002, right?

I mean, ISPs were never considered "common carriers" before 2015, right? I'm trying to get the details straight.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#312

Post by thehardsphere »

dd36 wrote: post #69
thehardsphere wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Verizon sued to destroy the prior regulatory scheme leaving Title II - per the courts - as the only workable regulatory scheme for NN. Pai so happens to have been a Verizon lawyer. Surely no coincidence. Edit: I’m not sure why I’m being downvoted: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._...

Mr. Pai's personal entanglements with Verizon aside, didn't the previous regulatory scheme only exist from 2010 on? Or was there prior regulation that the "FCC Open Internet Order of 2010" superceded? I'm asking because some comments seem to suggest the answer is "Yes, we already had this in another form before 2010" but there's scant mention of it on Wikipedia.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#313

Post by thehardsphere »

pseudalopex wrote: post #214
thehardsphere wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did they "realize" that, suddenly a couple years ago? I am not doubting you, I am genuinely confused. I mean, human greed is a constant, and the rules didn’t change from 1996-2015, yet during the same period you said that Wal-Mart would have paid to destroyed Amazon, Amazon became one of the most wealthy and powerful companies in the world. So... it must be something more than the rules, right? Greedy companies w…

The rules did change between 1996 and 2015. The FCC reclassified DSL and cable ISPs as information services in the mid-2000s, ending line-sharing rules that enabled competition and common carrier rules that were more stringent than the net neutrality rules that replaced them. In 2014, the courts ruled that the FCC couldn't continue enforcing net neutrality under the post-2005 classification.

Ok, so this is a pretty useful answer that's starting to clear things up a bit for me. Let me see if I’ve got this straight.

Sometime in the 2000s, ISPs were classified as Title I entities. Then in 2010, there was an "open internet order" that tried to enforce Net Neutrality in some new way, which the DC courts shot down when Verizon (represented by Mr. Pai) sued over it, saying that Title I didn’t give FCC the authority to regulate in the way that it was trying to in 2010. So then they reclassified ISPs as common carriers e.g. under Title II, so they could impose the same rules that existed in 2010.

So, what I'm still confused about:

1. Prior to 2015, were ISPs ever actually considered common carriers?

2. Did any regulation or legislation exist prior to the "FCC Open Internet Order 2010" that served the same explicitly stated purpose (FCC chairmen saying similar, nice sounding things without actually having the force of law doesn't count)?

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#314

Post by thehardsphere »

NickGerleman wrote: post #98

I find it alarming, and somewhat ironic, this article was removed from HN temporarily for it being repeatedly flagged. I don't fully agree with the article, but using a mechanism to prevent abuse to hide an opinion that you disagree with is akin to the forms of censorship net neutrality is meant to prevent.

Welcome to the HN echo chamber.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#315

Post by pbreit »

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?

"Should it be terrible in order for us to realize when regulations are in our best interest?"

Generally, yes. In the USA, regulation should be the absolute last resort. And even then, Americans might wish to trade "terrible" for freedom and liberty.

Re: Ajit Pai is right

#316

Post by libertyEQ »

croon wrote: post #305
libertyEQ wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, you think that the age of my account specifically indicates how long I've been on HN? That is come serious lack of logic. I guess I could drag my old laptop out, and retrieve my downvote-able credentials, and come after you. I would prefer to discuss issues, but I guess you should be on the lookout...
Post reply on HN