Ajit Pai is right
stratechery.com
Ajit Pai is right
1–10 of 316 posts
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#2> There is no evidence of systemic abuse by ISPs governed under Title I, which means there are not immediate benefits to regulation, only theoretical ones
False. They've tried in the past I believe. There was something with AT&T and iPhone users around 2010 (IIRC it was about Facetime)? There were more.
Also the thing about Portugal and Euros. Yeah that graphic has been circulating for a while now, it predates this discussion. It's an illustrative graphic, not like a screen shot. Kinda like when you post a MFW picture but it's not actually your face when.
Also, as a side note, what's stratechery.com? I've seen it posted a lot. I read the wiki, but idk why I should care about this guy's opinion.
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#3Is this right given that ISPs have local monopolies?
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#4Sure, except just about every example of companies doing the right thing had the flame of regulatory action and fines burning underneath them. If there was no risk of severe financial backlash, they'd keep pushing harder.
Not to mention the huge swaths of the US where there is either effectively or actually only one carrier. These companies don't act nationally - they will target their efforts to desperate areas where their customers will have no choice but to accept their terms. What incentive would they have to "innovate" or "improve service?" None.
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#5> There is no evidence of systemic abuse by ISPs governed under Title I, which means there are not immediate benefits to regulation, only theoretical ones False. They've tried in the past I believe. There was something with AT&T and iPhone users around 2010 (IIRC it was about Facetime)? There were more. Also the thing about Portugal and Euros. Yeah that graphic has been circulating for a while now, it predates this d…
If it’s no longer illegal, would it even be called abuse?
Verizon sued to destroy the prior weak regulatory scheme. That’s why Title II was the remedy.
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._...
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#6This 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 internet has been the ability for new things to pop up and create a real impact on the world economy starting with just a website.
If the rules Ajit Pai wants in place were to be in place when Amazon got started its likely Wal-Mart could have paid to simply make them disappear for most internet providers by "buying" the right to e-commerce traffic.
That's not a world I want to live in - and its not one you should want to live in either if you believe in dreaming and creating something larger than yourself
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#7His restaurant examples of the burden of regulations aren't exactly swaying me here. Where are the examples of the burden the ISPs have had these last few years? It seems like knee-jerk anti-regulation without any concern for the specifics of the industry. In fact, these regulations should make it so burdensome to start new ISPs, but instead they have entirely separate legislation to prevent them.
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#8"We promise we won't systematically abuse this, we double promise with a cherry on top. But we need to be able to, for reasons. But we won't. Swear down. But the option is nice, you know?"
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#9> There is no evidence of systemic abuse by ISPs governed under Title I, which means there are not immediate benefits to regulation, only theoretical ones False. They've tried in the past I believe. There was something with AT&T and iPhone users around 2010 (IIRC it was about Facetime)? There were more. Also the thing about Portugal and Euros. Yeah that graphic has been circulating for a while now, it predates this d…
Others include netflix which is why netflix started fast.com as a way of measuring speed to netflix. By making fast.com faster the ISPs would be making netflix faster which was what they were avoiding. Smart move by netflix.
Re: Ajit Pai is right
#10An article completly broken by it's fundamental assumption; a NN internet is some how more expensive than a non NN one.
What impossible regulatory burden is the FCC really applying to the poor ISPs? The reason NN has been the default for all these decades is it's more work to manually inspect packets to provide these artificial tiers of service and the ISP gravy train is way too good as it is to risk exposing their monopolies to consumer outrage.
The internet is a utility as much as electricity, and yet you don't see the power companies saying it's important for ~competition~ to charge variable rates for your power delivery (though, recent advances means this is possible so, once NN is killed expect Grid Neutrality to be next).
Sacrifice the internet for profit for all I care, just don't fucking try to say it's a good thing for consumers.