Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ajit Pai says you’re going to love the death of net neutrality

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: Ajit Pai says you’re going to love the death of net neutrality

#71

Post by Grue3 »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #61
spoiledtechie wrote: post #43

Can I be the antagonist here? I simply want a free market for the internet. Stop with government intervention on both sides. Simply protect the consumer and let the free market take over. Who cares if companies like netflix get charged more? It will allow another competitor to bubble up since Netflix will start adjusting their prices. This works. Its called capitalism. In theory, simply look at Lasik. Lasik 5 years a…

That would be fine if there were any competition to begin with . Allowing incumbents to abuse their customers does devalue them, making their competitors relatively more valuable. The problem is that there are no competitors ! What we are left with are incumbents who can devalue themselves via customer abuse without consequence, which simply boils down to customer abuse.

By your logic, no competitive market can ever arise because somebody is always the first, and incumbents can't possibly be competed with. Why isn't everything a monopoly?

If lack of regulation allows for an incumbent to engage in anti-consumer behavior, it opens a huge door for a more consumer-friendly competitor to sweep the market.

Re: Ajit Pai says you’re going to love the death of net neutrality

#72

Post by bthrm »

Someone1234 wrote: post #70
bthrm wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, paying extra to get unlimited traffic to certain services is good. It’s good there’s choice.

You, as the consumer, aren't making the choice. The ISP is picking which companies get the privileged position. It is in effect king-making certain services.

No because European law does not allow them to do that. If you zero rate YouTube you have to zero rate all video streaming sites, for example.

Re: Ajit Pai says you’re going to love the death of net neutrality

#73

Post by Someone1234 »

bthrm wrote: post #72
Someone1234 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You, as the consumer, aren't making the choice. The ISP is picking which companies get the privileged position. It is in effect king-making certain services.

No because European law does not allow them to do that. If you zero rate YouTube you have to zero rate all video streaming sites, for example.

So in effect you're arguing it works due to Net Neutrality?

Re: Ajit Pai says you’re going to love the death of net neutrality

#74

Post by JustSomeNobody »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #60
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. However, I doubt anyone can come along at this point and beat FB, Amazon, Google, Apple and Microsoft, etc. without a major shakeup.

They are not synonymous with "the internet".

They kinda are... unfortunately.

Re: Ajit Pai says you’re going to love the death of net neutrality

#75

Post by dingaling »

barneygumble742 wrote: post #25
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #2

Part of me really hopes the internet heads into the crapper within the next couple years. It's time for a reboot anyway, to clear the cruft.

Reboot the internet with IPv6 and now all your internal devices will be openly addressable to the internet. I see nothing good coming from that.

For a start your internal devices shouldn't have an Internet-routable prefix assigned.

Secondly, refer to other comments re: firewalls

Re: Ajit Pai says you’re going to love the death of net neutrality

#76

Post by polski-g »

Someone1234 wrote: post #50
polski-g wrote: post #42

Its important for everyone to know that the existence of non-existence of the Obama-era NN rules had no bearing on what most people think net neutrality did. (read: Those rules did nothing for consumer protection). ISPs were free to opt-out of those rules if they so chose to do so. https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fc...

That's a legal theory that was never challenged (i.e. that ISPs could fall outside of Common Carrier status and bypass Title II). It was likely never challenged because not being a Common Carrier might make them liable for the content traveling over the wire. This article is ruminating on what might occur, not what actually occurred.

The DC Court of appeals said just the same:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD0...

an ISP making sufficiently clear to potential customers that it provides a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of “editorial intervention.” Id. ¶ 549. For instance, Alamo Broadband, the lone broadband provider that raises a First Amendment challenge to the rule, posits the example of an ISP wishing to provide access solely to “family friendly websites.” Alamo Pet. Reh’g 5. Such an ISP, as long as it represents itself as engaging in editorial interventi on of that kind, would fall outside the rule. See U.S. Telecom Ass’n , 825 F.3d at 743; FCC Opp’n Pets. Reh’g 28 -29; FCC Br. 146 n.53 . The Order thus specifies that an ISP remains “free to offer ‘edited’ services” without becoming subject to the rule ’s requirements . Order ¶ 556.

Re: Ajit Pai says you’re going to love the death of net neutrality

#77

Post by thomastjeffery »

Grue3 wrote: post #71
thomastjeffery wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be fine if there were any competition to begin with . Allowing incumbents to abuse their customers does devalue them, making their competitors relatively more valuable. The problem is that there are no competitors ! What we are left with are incumbents who can devalue themselves via customer abuse without consequence, which simply boils down to customer abuse.

By your logic, no competitive market can ever arise because somebody is always the first, and incumbents can't possibly be competed with. Why isn't everything a monopoly? If lack of regulation allows for an incumbent to engage in anti-consumer behavior, it opens a huge door for a more consumer-friendly competitor to sweep the market.

No, my logic is that no one can compete with an already present oligopoly.

Opening that door is fruitless, because it is still impossible for a small business to compete with the oligopoly.

ISPs are already very difficult ventures. There is a huge upfront cost, including infrastructure and land rights, that incumbents have already either paid or had paid for by government aid. There has also been huge support from government for incumbents. New ventures are risky, so incumbents are almost always chosen for tax spending.

And let's not blow this out of proportion: That door is not huge. It is barely significant in ideal circumstances. Infrastructure quality and price matter more than net neutrality to most consumers.

Post reply on HN