3 ms·

> Thank you for at least trying to enter the discussion. Thanks you for being rational and kind and not blindly discounting me. > I have not heard a single ar

by pitaj 9y ago

> Thank you for at least trying to enter the discussion. Thanks you for being rational and kind and not blindly discounting me. > I have not heard a single argument of how dismantling privacy protections (via S. J. Res 34) or net neutrality (Title II Communications Act 1934) can in any way accomplish, or even assist in this. The idea is not that those regulations in particular are bad. In fact, I think starting where Pai started with the removal of those regulations was a bad move, since they're already there. However, regulations are what they are, and any rule that a company must comply with is a relatively fixed legal expense and therefore a barrier to entry. This leads to any amount of regulation being a larger burden on startup firms than on large firms where these legal expenses are less relevant among their total expenses. > I'm fine with that, but I haven't seen or heard of any bill designed to accomplish that. Have you? No, I haven't. And that was one of the main issues I had with all of these Democrats who championed the previous FCC actions. People warned them that this was at most a temporary measure but instead of cementing it in legislation, they left it up to the president. I wish there was legislation, but it seems like the legislators think this issue should remain within the FCC. > It's also worth mentioning that, where possible, I prefer state-level legislation, but that federal-level regulation is inherently needed to enforce net-neutrality. Can you expand on why you think federal-level regulation is necessary, particularly when compared with only state regulation? > I do not see it as a reason to abandon the regulation. I agree. > What regulations are piling up? It's not just regulations that pile up, but also past policy decisions. Starting with making AT&T a monopoly in the first place, continuing through the Clinton era regulations, on through now applying decades-old regulations to the internet. Then you have the capture of local municipalities by large ISPs which allows them to control when new companies can access infrastructure, get permits, etc. Google Fiber had the largest problems with this last part, which is where I think people should start if they want to increase competition. > I don't see privacy protections, or net neutrality as unnecessary, or even detrimental. Right, neither do I. I agree that privacy protections and net neutrality are necessary for an open internet, but I also believe that those will be provided to consumers naturally through a competitive ISP market. That's why I don't support removing them first, and I also don't support adding them in the first place. > I have been honestly searching for an argument (any argument!) against net neutrality, but I have not found one. There is no argument against net neutrality. In my point of view, nobody is arguing over whether net neutrality is good. People are arguing over which way to best get it. (of course there are exceptions to the rule, like some ISP shills and very ignorant people) > Ajit Pai really is a corporate shill I, of course, have no idea what Pai's true motivations are, but it seems to me that he could support removing these regulations without being a corporate shill. I think he's just following his principles. There's a ReasonTV interview[1] with him that's actually pretty informative on what his true positions are, I suggest you watch it. I'd like to know your opinion about it. > 6 big ISPs really do have way more legal clout than they should I think they do have too much power over governments at every level which is why I'm automatically skeptical of any policy effort. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28

thomastjeffery 9y ago
> a relatively fixed legal expense and therefore a barrier to entry. No startup with any sense will actually do anything against these rules, so it is clearly not an expense or a barrier to entry. That is something that is relatively unique about net neutrality (and the former privacy protections) as a regulation in general. An ISP that does nothing to abuse its users will never have a burden here. It's a pothole in a road to nowhere. > Can you expand on why you think federal-level regulation is necessary, particularly when compared with only state regulation? An ISP's network is very unlikely to be constrained to one state. If a state enacted net-neutrality, the ISP would still be able to have preferred traffic in other states. To make matters worse, the customer's traffic is not the only end that must be protected, since the server needs the same amount of bandwidth. In order for a state's net-neutrality law to be effective, it would need to apply in every state where a server is running that the (in-state) customer wants to connect to. Naturally, a state cannot do that. > but I also believe that those will be provided to consumers naturally through a competitive ISP market. The sad fact is that there is no competitive market. The other sad fact is that most customers do not understand or care enough to push free market actors to provide these protections. > there's a ReasonTV interview[1] with him that's actually pretty informative on what his true positions are I've heard it. It takes a very minimal amount of thought to debunk his claims. From the interview: > My hope is that in a more free market light-touch environment, we can figure out what the right regulatory framework is to preserve those core protections of a free and open internet. It is abundantly clear that the rules that are in place are exactly that. > "What would an ISP be able to do that they cannot do with net-neutrality?" Pai: "Nothing." That is simply not true. There is abundant evidence that before Title II regulations were in place, ISPs were beginning to offer services with preferred traffic, etc. > These were all phantoms conjured up by people who wanted [net-neutrality] for political reasons. Like what? Clearly the real "phantoms" being "conjured up" are your own, Pai. I didn't bother to comment on the rest of the interview. Suffice it to say: Interviews like this are an opportunity for Ajit Pai to avoid any actual argument with net-neutrality, and even redefine arguments against net-neutrality in order to make them easier to defeat. It might be insightful to hear Ajit Pai actually discuss this topic with a net-neutrality advocate, so that real discussion is not tossed aside, but that almost certainly will not happen.

by pitaj 9y ago

thomastjeffery 9y ago

> a relatively fixed legal expense and therefore a barrier to entry. No startup with any sense will actually do anything against these rules, so it is clearly not an expense or a barrier to entry. That is something that is relatively unique about net neutrality (and the former privacy protections) as a regulation in general. An ISP that does nothing to abuse its users will never have a burden here. It's a pothole in a road to nowhere. > Can you expand on why you think federal-level regulation is necessary, particularly when compared with only state regulation? An ISP's network is very unlikely to be constrained to one state. If a state enacted net-neutrality, the ISP would still be able to have preferred traffic in other states. To make matters worse, the customer's traffic is not the only end that must be protected, since the server needs the same amount of bandwidth. In order for a state's net-neutrality law to be effective, it would need to apply in every state where a server is running that the (in-state) customer wants to connect to. Naturally, a state cannot do that. > but I also believe that those will be provided to consumers naturally through a competitive ISP market. The sad fact is that there is no competitive market. The other sad fact is that most customers do not understand or care enough to push free market actors to provide these protections. > there's a ReasonTV interview[1] with him that's actually pretty informative on what his true positions are I've heard it. It takes a very minimal amount of thought to debunk his claims. From the interview: > My hope is that in a more free market light-touch environment, we can figure out what the right regulatory framework is to preserve those core protections of a free and open internet. It is abundantly clear that the rules that are in place are exactly that. > "What would an ISP be able to do that they cannot do with net-neutrality?" Pai: "Nothing." That is simply not true. There is abundant evidence that before Title II regulations were in place, ISPs were beginning to offer services with preferred traffic, etc. > These were all phantoms conjured up by people who wanted [net-neutrality] for political reasons. Like what? Clearly the real "phantoms" being "conjured up" are your own, Pai. I didn't bother to comment on the rest of the interview. Suffice it to say: Interviews like this are an opportunity for Ajit Pai to avoid any actual argument with net-neutrality, and even redefine arguments against net-neutrality in order to make them easier to defeat. It might be insightful to hear Ajit Pai actually discuss this topic with a net-neutrality advocate, so that real discussion is not tossed aside, but that almost certainly will not happen.