4 ms·

I'm sure Net Neutrality would protect the internet as well as the Patriot Act protects our national security. Thanks but no thanks. I'm glad this is getting re

I'm sure Net Neutrality would protect the internet as well as the Patriot Act protects our national security. Thanks but no thanks. I'm glad this is getting repealed. This stinks of a trojan horse for more government control of the internet that would ultimately lead to censorship. I'll take my chances with Comcast et. al. rather than hand things over to the mother of all monopolies we call the government, especially with the anti-free speech forces in play today. The things Ajit Pai says [1] make much more sense to me than the hysteria coming from Net Neutrality proponents. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28

justboxing 9y ago
> Ajit Pai is a former Verizon lawyer, got paid massive amounts of money by them and even lobbied for them so he is massively biased and is working in favor of the companies and not the people. He cannot talk his way around it...the very first thing done was to allow ISPs to sell our information Source: Comments from your Source [1], which, btw, is a PAID ADVERTIZEMENT, not an 'Interview'.
- programmarchy 9y ago
  Ah yes, YouTube comments, the fountain of truth. The fact that he was a Verizon lawyer does not refute the things he's saying. It makes him an expert on the law in that domain, which is what qualifies him to be FCC chairman in the first place. Similar to how Alan Greenspan was a managing director on Wall Street before becoming chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the career trajectory of virtually every other federal agency chairperson. And the threat of ISPs selling our information is no greater than it was before "Net Neutrality". This is something that can be resolved as it has been with contract law and consumer choice -- same as with Google, Apple, etc. -- there's no need for the government to be involved at the federal level. In my mind, regulatory capture and censorship are much greater threats with the federal government becoming involved. Edit: the laws we do need to focus on are the bans on municipal broadband. This is what's stifling competition at the local level and preventing more competition and better consumer choice. That is where the focus of effort should be, in my opinion.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    While it's perhaps true that Ajit Pai is no worse than FED chairmen (and the current chairwoman, Janet Yellen), that should be seen as a damning indictment of the Federal Reserve system rather than and endorsement of the current FCC leadership. What's next ? Supreme court judges "sponsored" by Monsanto ? Wouldn't really be any worse than this, really. > This is something that can be resolved as it has been with contract law and consumer choice -- same as with Google, Apple, etc. -- > there's no need for the government to be involved at the federal level You're talking about monopolists. If anybody could open a telco (which isn't possible for physical reasons) then perhaps this would be an argument. But you cannot let monopolists "offer" contracts and expect a fair and balanced result.
urda 9y ago
It's rare to see someone so bought-in to the noise and lies that Ajit Pai is spewing here on HN, usually a more educated user base but nonetheless let's jump right in and counteract this bad comment. First of all, the Patriot Act was a complete joke. It is a slap in the face to this country, and a great living example of how "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety", so using that as a "positive point" is actually the very opposite. But I'm not worried about the Patriot Act right now, so we'll move on from it. Without Net Neutrality we end up with a world like this: https://i.imgur.com/0jXF92k.jpg https://i.imgur.com/0jXF92k.jpg Now before you lose your mind and start shouting "hypothetical!" much like our problematic Ajit Pai has been slinging, this is very much a reality for those stuck under that ISP. [1] THIS is what can (and very likely will) happen if US Telecoms and ISPs are allowed to repeal Net Neutrality. This isn't a joke anymore, this isn't a "well let's hear both sides first" kind of situation. This is an "act NOW" or we will lose the magic that made the internet the great connecting network of this planet. Many topics on HN are open to debate, this is not one of them. Not protecting or supporting Net Neutrality is the tech worker equivalent of being an "anti-vaxer". The fact that you are supporting the insanity that the current FCC Chair is pushing, it terrifies me that you are anywhere near my line of work. So we'll push back, we'll make the calls, we'll get the feet on the ground, because the comment you've painted is a horrifying reality where the powerful Telecoms tax every aspect of life. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q5_oV4JB10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q5_oV4JB10
- programmarchy 9y ago
  Do you realize you haven't actually made any argument that refutes any of the points I made? You've just made ad hominem attacks against me, and an assertion about what may happen in the future, with zero reasoning. Then you say this topic isn't even open to debate. You sound like one of those anti-free speech types, exactly the people I don't want censoring the internet using the force of the state. Get real. This is exactly the type of hysteria I was talking about. Thanks for proving my point!
  - urda 9y ago
    I have multiple citations there for starters, and clearly you didn't read any of them. > You've just made ad hominem attacks against me, and an assertion about what may happen in the future, with zero reasoning. Not at all, not only was the comment considerable I was even nice and included external sources for you to evaluate. In fact, one was the fact that without Net Neuatrality the internet is carved up, and that our current FCC chair thinks that's a hypothetical. Please, replying to comments on HN and showing that you didn't read my content or sources is in poor form, and you should stop that. This isn't a pretend situation, this is actually happening in countries that do not have these protections. > You sound like one of those anti-free speech types, exactly the people I don't want censoring the internet using the force of the state. Guess what Comcast, and any other ISP can do if we lose Net Neutrality? Remove your ability to post about anywhere on the internet. I'm defending that, you are not. So you're actually the anti-free speech person here right now. Literally! > Then you say this topic isn't even open to debate. It really isn't, let me explain that to you again: It really is not up for debate, the idea that "all bits are equal" is not up for debate. That's why I compared your poor point to an "anti-vaxer". Your point is toxic and dangerous to the current free and open internet. You want ISPs to be granted the ability to stamp out free speech and then attempt to tell me I'm against free speech? You've got a long way to go before you reach any sane argument point. I'll allow the HN voting system, my actual citations you've so conveniently ignored, and perhaps you'll actually read my comment instead. > Thanks for proving my point! I think the rest of HN, myself, and the internet have done a fantastic job of proving that no you don't actually have a point. So I'm not sure what you are celebrating here. I will not engage with you any further, and again I am absolutely terrified of anyone involved with Technology siding with the current FCC chair, as it shows deep ignorance that we must work to correct. > Get real. You're the one that needs to "get real". I will not engage in your trolling behavior any further, that last sentence pretty much confirmed you're not one to listen.
tzs 9y ago
> This stinks of a trojan horse for more government control of the internet that would ultimately lead to censorship. How is prohibiting ISPs from blocking their customs from accessing lawful content, prohibiting ISPs from throttling lawful content, and prohibiting paid prioritization going to lead to censorship? Those are the main rules from the 2015 Open Internet Order. There are a few other less important rules in the approximately 8 pages of the Order, so if that is where you think the risk of censorship resides, feel free to point out the details. (If you are confused by me saying 8 pages, because you've seen Pai and others waving around a 300-400 page document and claiming that it was the 2015 Open Internet Order...they were being intentionally misleading. That document was the actual rules, all 8 pages of them, plus a long analysis of the legal background for regulating net neutrality, and responses to the issues raised in the millions of comments received).
- programmarchy 9y ago
  See Title II of The Communication Act of 1934. [1] That's where the 300 pages of regulation come in to play. Title II will completely kill any chance of market competition by creating enormous barriers to market entry, and opens up a whole host of regulatory controls to the federal government. Now, see the history of television and radio. [1] http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > See Title II of The Communication Act of 1934. [1] That's where the 300 pages of regulation come in to play. No, it isn't. Laws and regulations are different things, and while Title II provides lots of pages of regulatory authority, the 2015 Open Internet order, as well as actually providing the Title II classification, adopts the specific regulations under Title II authority that the FCC would apply. The suggestions that other authorities that were specifically not used would somehow attach themselves to the internet is dishonest FUD (but that's pretty much all the anti-neutrality camp has ever had.)
    - tuxxy 9y ago
gremlinsinc 9y ago
Are you fucking serious? Say Verizon strikes up a deal with Huffington Post / MSNBC or Fox and Breitbart ... (The one you're less politically aligned with).. Now you can get wonky news from a source you don't trust for Free because it's 'included' in your package OR you can pay an extra $10 per month to get the other sites, and you may need to pay $5 per site that you want to visit.. Paywall nightmare. But the worst is-- now Verizon has full control of your political beliefs because they're ONLY allowing you to view specific content UNLESS you pay. THAT IS CENSORSHIP! This is not a good thing.

justboxing 9y ago

> Ajit Pai is a former Verizon lawyer, got paid massive amounts of money by them and even lobbied for them so he is massively biased and is working in favor of the companies and not the people. He cannot talk his way around it...the very first thing done was to allow ISPs to sell our information Source: Comments from your Source [1], which, btw, is a PAID ADVERTIZEMENT, not an 'Interview'.

programmarchy 9y ago
Ah yes, YouTube comments, the fountain of truth. The fact that he was a Verizon lawyer does not refute the things he's saying. It makes him an expert on the law in that domain, which is what qualifies him to be FCC chairman in the first place. Similar to how Alan Greenspan was a managing director on Wall Street before becoming chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the career trajectory of virtually every other federal agency chairperson. And the threat of ISPs selling our information is no greater than it was before "Net Neutrality". This is something that can be resolved as it has been with contract law and consumer choice -- same as with Google, Apple, etc. -- there's no need for the government to be involved at the federal level. In my mind, regulatory capture and censorship are much greater threats with the federal government becoming involved. Edit: the laws we do need to focus on are the bans on municipal broadband. This is what's stifling competition at the local level and preventing more competition and better consumer choice. That is where the focus of effort should be, in my opinion.
- candiodari 9y ago
  While it's perhaps true that Ajit Pai is no worse than FED chairmen (and the current chairwoman, Janet Yellen), that should be seen as a damning indictment of the Federal Reserve system rather than and endorsement of the current FCC leadership. What's next ? Supreme court judges "sponsored" by Monsanto ? Wouldn't really be any worse than this, really. > This is something that can be resolved as it has been with contract law and consumer choice -- same as with Google, Apple, etc. -- > there's no need for the government to be involved at the federal level You're talking about monopolists. If anybody could open a telco (which isn't possible for physical reasons) then perhaps this would be an argument. But you cannot let monopolists "offer" contracts and expect a fair and balanced result.

urda 9y ago

It's rare to see someone so bought-in to the noise and lies that Ajit Pai is spewing here on HN, usually a more educated user base but nonetheless let's jump right in and counteract this bad comment. First of all, the Patriot Act was a complete joke. It is a slap in the face to this country, and a great living example of how "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety", so using that as a "positive point" is actually the very opposite. But I'm not worried about the Patriot Act right now, so we'll move on from it. Without Net Neutrality we end up with a world like this: https://i.imgur.com/0jXF92k.jpg https://i.imgur.com/0jXF92k.jpg Now before you lose your mind and start shouting "hypothetical!" much like our problematic Ajit Pai has been slinging, this is very much a reality for those stuck under that ISP. [1] THIS is what can (and very likely will) happen if US Telecoms and ISPs are allowed to repeal Net Neutrality. This isn't a joke anymore, this isn't a "well let's hear both sides first" kind of situation. This is an "act NOW" or we will lose the magic that made the internet the great connecting network of this planet. Many topics on HN are open to debate, this is not one of them. Not protecting or supporting Net Neutrality is the tech worker equivalent of being an "anti-vaxer". The fact that you are supporting the insanity that the current FCC Chair is pushing, it terrifies me that you are anywhere near my line of work. So we'll push back, we'll make the calls, we'll get the feet on the ground, because the comment you've painted is a horrifying reality where the powerful Telecoms tax every aspect of life. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q5_oV4JB10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q5_oV4JB10

programmarchy 9y ago
Do you realize you haven't actually made any argument that refutes any of the points I made? You've just made ad hominem attacks against me, and an assertion about what may happen in the future, with zero reasoning. Then you say this topic isn't even open to debate. You sound like one of those anti-free speech types, exactly the people I don't want censoring the internet using the force of the state. Get real. This is exactly the type of hysteria I was talking about. Thanks for proving my point!
- urda 9y ago
  I have multiple citations there for starters, and clearly you didn't read any of them. > You've just made ad hominem attacks against me, and an assertion about what may happen in the future, with zero reasoning. Not at all, not only was the comment considerable I was even nice and included external sources for you to evaluate. In fact, one was the fact that without Net Neuatrality the internet is carved up, and that our current FCC chair thinks that's a hypothetical. Please, replying to comments on HN and showing that you didn't read my content or sources is in poor form, and you should stop that. This isn't a pretend situation, this is actually happening in countries that do not have these protections. > You sound like one of those anti-free speech types, exactly the people I don't want censoring the internet using the force of the state. Guess what Comcast, and any other ISP can do if we lose Net Neutrality? Remove your ability to post about anywhere on the internet. I'm defending that, you are not. So you're actually the anti-free speech person here right now. Literally! > Then you say this topic isn't even open to debate. It really isn't, let me explain that to you again: It really is not up for debate, the idea that "all bits are equal" is not up for debate. That's why I compared your poor point to an "anti-vaxer". Your point is toxic and dangerous to the current free and open internet. You want ISPs to be granted the ability to stamp out free speech and then attempt to tell me I'm against free speech? You've got a long way to go before you reach any sane argument point. I'll allow the HN voting system, my actual citations you've so conveniently ignored, and perhaps you'll actually read my comment instead. > Thanks for proving my point! I think the rest of HN, myself, and the internet have done a fantastic job of proving that no you don't actually have a point. So I'm not sure what you are celebrating here. I will not engage with you any further, and again I am absolutely terrified of anyone involved with Technology siding with the current FCC chair, as it shows deep ignorance that we must work to correct. > Get real. You're the one that needs to "get real". I will not engage in your trolling behavior any further, that last sentence pretty much confirmed you're not one to listen.

tzs 9y ago

> This stinks of a trojan horse for more government control of the internet that would ultimately lead to censorship. How is prohibiting ISPs from blocking their customs from accessing lawful content, prohibiting ISPs from throttling lawful content, and prohibiting paid prioritization going to lead to censorship? Those are the main rules from the 2015 Open Internet Order. There are a few other less important rules in the approximately 8 pages of the Order, so if that is where you think the risk of censorship resides, feel free to point out the details. (If you are confused by me saying 8 pages, because you've seen Pai and others waving around a 300-400 page document and claiming that it was the 2015 Open Internet Order...they were being intentionally misleading. That document was the actual rules, all 8 pages of them, plus a long analysis of the legal background for regulating net neutrality, and responses to the issues raised in the millions of comments received).

programmarchy 9y ago
See Title II of The Communication Act of 1934. [1] That's where the 300 pages of regulation come in to play. Title II will completely kill any chance of market competition by creating enormous barriers to market entry, and opens up a whole host of regulatory controls to the federal government. Now, see the history of television and radio. [1] http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > See Title II of The Communication Act of 1934. [1] That's where the 300 pages of regulation come in to play. No, it isn't. Laws and regulations are different things, and while Title II provides lots of pages of regulatory authority, the 2015 Open Internet order, as well as actually providing the Title II classification, adopts the specific regulations under Title II authority that the FCC would apply. The suggestions that other authorities that were specifically not used would somehow attach themselves to the internet is dishonest FUD (but that's pretty much all the anti-neutrality camp has ever had.)
  - tuxxy 9y ago

gremlinsinc 9y ago

Are you fucking serious? Say Verizon strikes up a deal with Huffington Post / MSNBC or Fox and Breitbart ... (The one you're less politically aligned with).. Now you can get wonky news from a source you don't trust for Free because it's 'included' in your package OR you can pay an extra $10 per month to get the other sites, and you may need to pay $5 per site that you want to visit.. Paywall nightmare. But the worst is-- now Verizon has full control of your political beliefs because they're ONLY allowing you to view specific content UNLESS you pay. THAT IS CENSORSHIP! This is not a good thing.