11 ms·
> Pai argued that rolling back the rules will encourage ISPs to spend more on their broadband networks How? How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out
by outsidetheparty 9y ago
> Pai argued that rolling back the rules will encourage ISPs to spend more on their broadband networks
How? How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? It's just so frustrating that these guys no longer even bother to pretend that their arguments make any logical sense at all. "We'll protect user privacy by eliminating these rules that protect user privacy!" "We'll boost competition and choice, by giving the existing entrenched players more control and power!"
This is just such a naked demonstration of regulatory capture. It boggles my mind.
- __jal 9y agoHe's just spewing bullshit to get past the decision becoming final. Engaging on a level of logic with someone who is seeking an outcome and just says whatever they think will support their view. This is about the exercise of power. And as has happened since Reagan, when the clownshow in office is finally shown the door, the D's get to clean up the mess, work towards fixing economy yet again, and the cycle of life is complete. Sigh.
- hosh 9y agoI keep thinking about http://www.cringely.com/2015/03/31/the-net-neutrality-mystery/ http://www.cringely.com/2015/03/31/the-net-neutrality-myster...
- splintercell 9y agoIn past I've seen comments and incendiary language like this be given warning from the mods. I come to this site because despite of being more liberal leaning, I can have calm conversations with people.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- F2 9y agoHow exactly is the comment you're replying to "incendiary"?
- grzm 9y agoThe comment includes highly partisan and uncivil language: > spewing bullshit > the clownshow in office > D's get to clean up the mess Regardless of how right (or wrong) the commenter may be, this type of language does not invite or encourage the civil and productive discourse that is strongly valued on HN. There are ways to express such opinions in a civil way, though it requires more effort. Given the current polarized environment in the US, it's difficult enough to engage in constructive discourse on political topics: on a forum such as HN with only text as the medium of communication it's even more difficult without using language used above.
- Romanulus 9y agoHoly fuck, get a load of this asshole.
- __jal 9y agoFor the record, I use 'bullshit' as a technical term[1]. I can imagine why someone might dislike 'clownshow'. Frankly, I find it accurate, or I wouldn't have written it, and I didn't use such terms in the past to describe pols I disagree with - it is specific to what I see as a historically bad outfit. "Clean up the mess" is "uncivil"? Sorry, that's silly, and another demonstration that politically correct language policing isn't just for lefty college-kids. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946 https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122...
- anigbrowl 9y agoI also support this use of 'bullshit' as a technical term and recommend that book to anyone who will listen. Your language strikes me as disgruntled rather than incendiary, but then my political views are already closely aligned with yours. Civility is important for discourse, but so is clarity of expression, and I do not consider it uncivil to express a firm opinion bluntly whether or not I agree with it.
- throwawaymaroon 9y agothere's nowhere to run and hide from the building rage, nor should there be
- __jal 9y agoWhat specifically do you find incendiary? I'm not using Washington political euphemisms, but I honestly fail to see anything "rabble-rousing, seditious or subversive" about what I've said. I'm calling it like I see it. Please do explain.
- 1_2__3 9y agoApparently observing objective reality is incendiary?
- krisdol 9y agoHN isn't generally liberal leaning. HN is generally libertarian leaning. Not all of us, of course, but the sentiment here is very pro-business.
- acjohnson55 9y agoI'd gamble the liberals have the plurarilty, but just with a much higher representation of libertarians than broader society.
- krisdol 9y agoI can agree to that.
- dang 9y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14207836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14207836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13932041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13932041
- objectivistbrit 9y agoIt really isn't. Most threads that touch on political or economic topics have a majority being pro-regulation, pro-spending, etc. Things are complicated because many tech libertarians are liberal-libertarians who support things like basic income, but that doesn't change the overall slant of HN. Also note most liberals are ostensibly pro-business, they just think the gov't needs to step in to regulate the free market. Comments like the grandparent are an example of liberalism without any semblance of objectivity. He disagrees with someone, and, rather than think about why someone would hold those views (even if erroneous), takes for granted that they are irrational, illogical and driven by a hidden agenda.
- twoodfin 9y agoWhy is that confusing? During the Title II debate many on HN thought broadband should be regulated as a utility, or at least forced to be sold only as a "dumb pipe". Utilities and dumb pipes have terrible profit margins. Businesses want to invest capital in things that have larger profit margins (today, for example, wireless). Verizon's vision for Fios was to sell a bunch of value-add services like video calling and on-demand movies. When plain-old-internet services started providing those capabilities without having to pay Verizon directly, Fios deployments slowed to a crawl. Interesting that Comcast is heavily pitching their home security add-on, as that's a service not yet broadly adopted over the 'net.
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago> Verizon's vision for Fios was to sell a bunch of value-add services like video calling and on-demand movies. When plain-old-internet services started providing those capabilities without having to pay Verizon directly, Fios deployments slowed to a crawl. Let's say this succeeded and people jumped to Verizon for their internet and their media. What would happen to Amazon Video and Netflix?
- metaobject 9y agoVerizon might want to ensure that their products work better than NetFlix and Amazon by throttling network traffic going to those domains? Perhaps even stall the pipe every now and then to frustrate users into seeking more stable alternatives? Oh, look! Verizon's service is so much faster than those other two!! I wonder why?!?!
- username223 9y ago> Utilities and dumb pipes have terrible profit margins. Utilities and dumb pipes also have incredible societal value. In the first world, potable water is so cheap that you can use a gallon of it to make your pee disappear, and water-borne disease is almost nonexistent. Businesses try to avoid this miracle of efficiency by putting that water in plastic bottles, trucking it around the country, marketing the hell out of it, and charging a dollar or more per liter, but I don't see any reason to encourage that behavior.
- splintercell 9y ago> How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? The fundamental idea is that the amount of investment done in a venture is directly proportional to the profitability of that venture. If govt makes a regulation saying that Google can provide Hangouts service, but it cannot charge more for Enterprise Hangouts features, then Google has no additional incentive to expand the hangouts service than what it gets by having the business of consumer market. If Uber/Lyft is previously not allowed to provide priority Corporate service to corporate clients (and let's just say they do it by letting the corporate Uber cars bypass the consumer Uber cars using their Map service) then Uber/Lyft are allowed to do that, then their increased profit margins will allow them to fund their autonomous car other operations to build the network faster. You may disagree with the ethic of overnight delivery services of UPS, but at least not pretend that if UPS is allowed to charge more and deliver packets overnight then this allows them invest more into their infrastructure.
- outsidetheparty 9y agoEliminating net neutrality incentivizes ISPs to build auxiliary services that they can artificially support by throttling the bandwidth of competing products. It incentivizes them to seek profit by favoring some net traffic over other net traffic. It does not in any way incentivize them to build larger or better networks. It does not incentivize them to invest in their infrastructure. All it does is let them make more profit off what they already have. I mean seriously, if the whole argument is that they're not making enough money as it is: if a 97%[1] profit margin isn't enough money for them to build out their networks, just how much more do they need? [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-cables-97-pro_b_6591916.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-cab...
- rayiner 9y agoThat 97% number is bogus. It is computed by assuming that all the costs of the network are borne by video service, and that the broadband service is essentially pure profit. Look at carriers' actual audited financial statements: https://www.verizon.com/about/sites/default/files/annual/verizon-annual-2015/downloads/15_vz_ar.pdf https://www.verizon.com/about/sites/default/files/annual/ver.... Verizon's wireline division had an operating profit margin of 5.8% in 2015, 2.7% in 2014, and 0.9% in 2013 (see page 24).
- TearsInTheRain 9y ago> We'll boost competition and choice, by giving the existing entrenched players more control and power! Pai's position is that there is a healthy amount of competition in the isp space(he points to things like mobile competition and network development as evidence) and net neutrality is at best not needed and at worse harmful to innovation.
- outsidetheparty 9y agoHis position is plainly false. As we all know, broadband service is already an effective monopoly in the vast majority of the US. And the argument that net neutrality harms innovation is a simply ridiculous inversion of fact. "Curse this level playing field! what would really help innovation is if we give carriers the power to throttle any new competing ideas out of existence!"
- shmerl 9y agoPai is a shill. No need to look for common sense in this farce. His whole point is to let monopolists run amok.
- intended 9y agoI had my doubts, that perhaps he had some broader plan which would magically enforce NN without having to over reach. But then his article came out, and it was just filled with FUD and misinformation. I doubt that he is a dull person, and that he reached the FCC by projecting an air of deep incompetence. It follows that he knows full well that what he says is incorrect, and says it because he knows it will appeal to his core target. I assume this is his run up for either political position, or a cushy job in telecom.
- shmerl 9y agoHe used to work as a lawyer for Verizon, so his ties to the oligopolists are well established.
- danjayh 9y agoProvided that there is competition, it's actually a good idea. My knee-jerk response to this was "you can do this, but you have to take away their monopolies." In a heavily competitive environment, ISPs wouldn't be able to get away with BS because everyone would just switch.
- GVIrish 9y agoI don't think that would necessarily be the case. If ISP's could extract a bunch of extra profit by throttling there's a decent chance that all of them would do it. Look at mobile providers for an example. Text messages cost almost nothing yet for many years each company charged heftily for text messaging which earned them a mountain of profit. And that's in a segment where there were multiple big players competing on relatively even terms.
- JohnTHaller 9y agoIt doesn't. But they don't particularly care. I live in NYC and have access to a single proper broadband provider. And they'll absolutely sell everything they can about me given the chance because they know I have no alternative but to use them.