5 ms·

Is there a sympathetic view of Ajit Pai that anyone could offer? I can understand how he would be opposed to the pro-consumer agenda of Wheeler's FCC. To be su

• tn13 10y ago
  I have never be convinced why net neutrality is a consumer-protection agenda. Always looked like a "elite protection" agenda to me. My parents would only benefit if they get a restricted internet at lower prices. Dont think they ar being protected by net neutrality.
  • givinguflac 10y ago
    I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think you understand what net neutrality is. Also, there is no legitimate reason an internet connection would have to be 'restricted' as a cost saving measure, that's just silly. Who are these 'elites' you refer to with their gluttonous 4Mb down/1Mb up connection speeds? (These are the speeds Ajit wants to revert the 'broadband' standard to, which is insane.)
    • tn13 10y ago
      Let him reduce it to 64Kbps what difference does it make ? Call an elephant a horse will not make it a horse. As users we constantly want more bandwidth and ISP that fails to provide it will go out of business nevertheless.
      • serge2k 10y ago
        ooooooh you are one of those "FREE MARKET WILL FIX IT" people. Well, ignoring that the whole idea just makes me suspect you live in a fantasy world, ISPs frequently have regional monopolies. They aren't going out of business because thye provide shitty service because the internet has become something people rely on. Losing it would be a big blow. Comcast thrives despite being absolutely despised by a large percentage of their customer base.
  • theandrewbailey 10y ago
    All the restricted internet plans introduced so far have had unreasonably low datacaps with punitive overages, just for a $5/month discount. If the kids came over and streamed a movie or downloaded the latest game, the bill would be $15+ more instead. Is it no wonder why those don't exist anymore?
  • rashkov 10y ago
    Well, I think that we would all benefit from a level playing field. I think that the end-state of a non-neutral network is that ISPs can demand payment from startups that rely on bandwidth. I personally really enjoy Netflix. If they were launching today, they would have to pay off a lot of ISPs so that their videos aren't throttled into skipping and stuttering. Let's say that they get enough venture capital to cover these costs, and they pay the ISPs. If this happens then the ISPs are double-dipping -- they're getting paid by the users to access netflix, and then they are getting paid by netflix to access the users. Does that seem fair to you?
    • tn13 10y ago
      What you think others will benefit from should have not bearing on regulation in my opinion. I am prefectly happy paying $10 a month for an internet connection that plays just netflix and nothing else to give you an example.
      • rashkov 10y ago
        Let's say you want to start a new service called flerptube. You can do that today -- write the code, get the content, and put it up on AWS. Then it's up to the market to try out your product and make you king of streaming. You can do that because of net neutrality. Without net neutrality you would have to ask permission from the cable companies, who see you as a threat to their own cable television offerings. They'll either refuse to work with you, or cut you a terrible deal. I'm not saying that others benefit from net neutrality -- I'm saying that you do as a customer, and you do as a business owner.
        • NoPiece 10y ago
          There was no net neutrality into Feb 2015, and it didn't stop the creation of YouTube, Netflix, Vimeo, DailyMotion, etc.. They didn't have to ask ISP permission. We are just going to the state of existence that has been the norm for most of existence of internet.
          • 10y ago
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • serge2k 10y ago
    > My parents would only benefit if they get a restricted internet at lower prices Then they can get lower speed internet and/or lower caps to lower their rates.
• givinguflac 10y ago
  Honestly I wouldn't be vehemently opposed to that, if ISP choice was actually a thing in the US. For the vast majority of people it isn't, and it won't be given how we know ISPs have unofficial agreements to stay out of each other's territory ("it's not a loss of competition because we aren't there so let us merge" etc).
  • dhfhduk 10y ago
    I would be ok with arguments against net neutrality except: 1. There is no competition in any given market for the most part. ISPs are defacto monopolies in most places. When the same politicians arguing against net neutrality are trying to pass laws prohibiting municipal broadband, it makes no sense. 2. ISPs have benefited from, and depend on, resources and favors granted to them by the public. They run cable on public land, have benefited from right-of-way laws, and have received financial assistance. The internet itself is fundamentally a publicly developed resource. It's ludicrous to argue that they aren't legally obligated to the public interest at some basic level. Want to get rid of net neutrality? Fine. But then I should be able to charge you unlimited amounts for running your cables over my land. So should the city. 3. Legally, it makes no sense for ISPs to argue that they can discriminate packets for one purpose but not another. So if they can discriminate between packets, they should be legally responsible for all traffic on their network. Child porn happening on your network? You're legally responsible because you didn't actively filter it, just as if child porn creation was happening in my house, I'd be responsible. I don't really understand why all these things aren't being argued. How did we get to some idea that ISPs just invented the internet and built it completely on their own land, using their own resources, with no assistance, and are somehow simultaneously totally unresponsible for anything that occurs on their networks, and that it would be unfair for the government to offer competing services? If ISPs want to gid rid of net neutrality, they should be held accountable for the true consequences.
• entee 10y ago
  I'm quite opposed to the guy's ideas from what I've read so far, but here's one perspective: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21Benkler.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21Benkler.html Some of the ways to look at it is that if providers can sell a fastlane to Netflix they can reduce prices for the consumer. Other arguments that have been advanced include having a fast lane for medical devices or emergency services. I could see an argument in favor if the rest of the marketplace was highly competitive and you could just switch to a different provider if the provider you had was behaving abusively. That's not the case in most of the US where you have a duopoly at best for fast internet. Personally, I find this guy's proposals to be bad policy for individual consumers, but they're pretty great for ISPs. They would argue that in the end that's great for consumers too, but as far as I am concerned, that remains to be seen.
  • rhizome 10y ago
    What's a good reason for medical devices and emergency services to use the public internet? I feel like the idea of fast lanes is being imposed to avoid more difficult tasks on companys' part, to our detriment. Aside from that, Netflix is already cheap.
    • wmf 10y ago
      A physically separate network for medical devices in your home is too expensive to justify.
      • nitrogen 10y ago
        Medical devices and emergency services are a red herring. They're the ISPs' "think of the children" play.
        • mywittyname 10y ago
          The most effective counter argument is that ISP want to be allowed to slow these same services down. "Well, you bought an ADT security system, and they are not a Preferred Security Service for Time Warner, so even though you pay for 40Mb internet, we can only allocate 4Kb to ADT."
• dv_dt 10y ago
  I thought the european deregulation of the last mile was only possible because in large part it was quasi-governmental telecoms which owned the last mile infrastructure - so mostly it was governments ordering themselves to setup a competitive market. In the US, most last mile infrastructure is privately owned and you would have a big fight with those private owners (which generally are corporations that start to legislatively meddle when cities try to do things like put in their own last mile infrastructure). Though I agree, public access (and preferably ownership) of the last mile seems like the best structural and low regulation way to maintain a competitive market for internet access.
  • rashkov 10y ago
    I don't have actual numbers on this, but it seems like most of the last-mile infrastructure was paid for using government subsidies. Essentially our congress handed out natural monopolies to these telecoms, subsidized by the taxpayer. Assuming that's true, then I would be okay with the government taking the last mile back from the private owners, or force them to open it up to competition while allowing them to charge a small usage fee.
• KenoFischer 10y ago
  > Is there a sympathetic view of Ajit Pai that anyone could offer? I met commissioner Pai in person last year (he was meeting with groups of founders in the Boston area). IIRC, the primary point of discussion was wireless spectrum policy and ensuring access to broadband internet for the greatest number of people, so I have little insight to offer into his thinking on other issues. However, in my impression he seemed to be a thoroughly decent and knowledgable person who cared deeply about the work that he is doing. I think it is important to separate the policy issues from the person.
  • eropple 10y ago
    > I think it is important to separate the policy issues from the person. This is only true if you consider policy to be separate from humanity. The advocacy of anti-poor policies (he's in favor of preventing caps on the price of inmate calls in prisons, he and O'Rielly submarined the Lifeline internet program designed to help the poor connect to the internet) speaks to him as a human being as much as anything else. The notion that policy and politics are somehow separate from the measure of a human being is dangerous because it provides all sorts of cover for nasty, anti-social behavior just because it seems like he loves his wife and his dog. (This can also be called the Mike Pence strategy.)
    • legodt 10y ago
      I believe Checkers the Dog was a brave trailblazer in this category
    • yarou 10y ago
      The premise of your post implies that Pai and those who subscribe to his policy stances are somehow malicious in nature. But what you're missing is that they could simply be idiots. Just like someone who believes in fantastical theories, like the Earth is flat. We obviously know the theory he believes in is irrational, but he could very well be a good person. He just happens to be a moron.
      • eropple 10y ago
• wmf 10y ago
  some european countries have a deregulated last mile Just to nitpick this, I think you mean regulated last mile to create competition in the second mile. A deregulated last mile is basically what we have in the US and it leads to monopolies.
  • rashkov 10y ago
    Yes absolutely, good catch
• jauer 10y ago
  Coming from a WISP, He has advocated for increased unlicensed or lightly licensed spectrum which helps increase last mile competition and rural access.
  • rashkov 10y ago
    That's pretty great, glad to hear it. I hope he can do more to force the telcos to live up to their broadband commitments in rural areas.