6 ms·

I agree with gbrown. Pai’s statements are so untruthful and nonsensical that I can’t figure out why he thinks it could help even after reading many comments by

I agree with gbrown. Pai’s statements are so untruthful and nonsensical that I can’t figure out why he thinks it could help even after reading many comments by him. His most clear argument is that it will somehow increase investments into ISP infrastructure (citing, I think, what happened in Portugal) while he simultaneously says we have no way to know what effects repealing it will have until we try it. Meanwhile a million people have shared the images of the bucketed plans from Portugal charging $9.99 extra for social networking and things like that. The man is totally full of BS. As for your comment that he was an Obama appointee, he was actually selected by Mitch McConnell but I know it’s a common trope to blame everything on Obama. “Though an Obama appointee, Pai does not share Obama’s progressive views and is by no means someone Obama would have chosen to lead the commission. Rather, there’s a tradition of letting the minority party pick two commissioners, since the majority can only legally hold three seats; in nominating Pai — at the recommendation of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican — Obama was sticking to that tradition.”

rhino369 9y ago
All your reasons for impugning his integrity boil down to you disagree with him. That is narrow minded. Pai (and many economists) believe a double sided market could increase potential profits which would incentive investment so ISPs could provide a "fast lane." That isn't "somehow." They thought about and have a reason for believing what they believe. You can disagree but that doesn't make them hitler.
- mrgordon 9y ago
  There is no fast lane except by creating tons and tons of slow lanes. There are many ways to incentivize even our existing ISPs to invest more but he doesn’t pursue most of those. Meanwhile the actual architects of the Internet point out that he is trying to reclassify a telecommunications service as a data service (despite pretty clear definitions that make it a telecom service) in order to remove most of the FCC’s regulatory powers https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/25/fcc-doubles-down-on-its-dead-wrong-definition-of-how-the-internet-works/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/25/fcc-doubles-down-on-its-de... Whether he actually believes less regulation will help the average person or not, he is taking slimy approaches to force his opinion through (over loud complaints from Tim Berners Lee and basically every major internet player that isn’t an ISP)
- mrgordon 9y ago
  No actually very few of my reasons for pointing out his lack of integrity have to do with simple disagreement on policy. I would try not to label people as narrow minded based on one short comment on the Internet. This community normally does a better job of not immediately devolving into personal attacks especially when you didn’t even ask what my reasons for disliking him are. Read a much more in depth analysis in one of my other comments of his transformation of the FCC into a partisan agency, his attacks on poor people through the Lifeline program, as well as his close ties to Verizon which create a direct conflict of interest: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15781535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15781535 Not to even mention the post that started this thread about how Pai has accepted over a million fake comments on net neutrality from the telecom/ISP industries’ astroturfer lobbyists while refusing to provide enough information for NY to look into the matter (or investigating themselves) There are people playing devil’s advocate for Pai’s views but how many people actually seem to strongly want these changes? Have you met any who don’t work for Comcast, Verizon, etc.? I honestly have not
indubitable 9y ago
I am not stating he is somebody Obama would have chosen to lead the FCC, but Obama saw fit to appoint him. A democratic majority senate saw fit to approve him. I do not necessarily agree with Pai, but actually take the time to read what he says instead of snippets taken out of context and it's hardly nonsensical or untruthful. In going through this process of trying to actually discover his views, I found several interviews [1][2][3] that I found informative. His major view is that you regulate as necessary. Let people compete openly and freely with as few rules as possible. When bad behavior emerges deal with it as necessary. He is focused primarily on competition and simplifying what is required for ISPs to get in and operate. Adding hundreds of pages of rules and regulations does not really fit into the picture here. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he certainly has a perfectly cogent argument. And I think disagreeing on the right path forward is perfectly fine. A number of small ISPs have written to Pai expressing support of his plans to dismantle the rules. Others have written him expressing disagreement with those plans. This is all a far cry from calling somebody a nonsensical shill, a liar, and so on. And in the vitriol on both sides, I find most have very little understanding of what it is they're even getting so riled up about. -- Out of curiosity, if you would humor me. Why do you think Google Fiber failed to achieve significant sign ups in the region it setup in? In the ~6 years of operation to 2016 it managed an estimated 0.07million television subscribers, 0.45 million broadband subscribers. They've since rolled back further plans for expansion and engaged in lay offs in downsizing. Imagine the doomsday scenarios come true and suddenly ISPs are demanding $10 for social media, $10 for gaming, ... . What effect, if any, do you think this would have on the outcome? [1] - https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/05/526916610/fcc-chief-net-neutrality-rules-treating-internet-as-utility-stifle-growth https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/05/52... [2] - https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chair-dishes-on-plan-to-rewrite-net-neutrality-rules/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chair-dishes-on-plan-to-rewrit... [3] - https://www.recode.net/2017/5/5/15560150/transcript-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-merger-recode-decode https://www.recode.net/2017/5/5/15560150/transcript-fcc-chai...
- mrgordon 9y ago
  As far as the Obama appointment, let me be a bit more specific. It has been customary for a looong time for the majority party to allow the minority party to appoint two members of the FCC. In fact, legally the majority party can only have three of the five seats. So even if Obama/Congress had gone against tons of precedent and not accepted Pai as the nominee, McConnell would have just sent another similar nominee in his place. There was nothing to be gained by being obstructionist other than slowing down the appointment. I’ll look into the sources you provided and reply to that portion after I’ve had a chance to watch them. As far as Google Fiber, I think there are several reasons it hasn’t gone well. It was far more difficult and expensive than expected for them to roll it out. This had to do with many problems getting permits, digging and laying fiber, and getting sued by existing ISPs. Then the existing ISPs (who are far better at marketing their services and already have a huge user base that rarely switches providers) immediately increased bandwidth or decreased prices as soon as Google moved into new areas. Thus the consumers greatly benefited when Google Fiber arrived in their town but they had little incentive to actually switch to Google. For example, Time Warner announced in North Carolina that it was boosting its customers from 50 mbps to 300 mbps (for no additional charge) as soon as Google announced they would start rolling out fiber. See http://www.zdnet.com/article/i-wish-google-fiber-was-in-my-neighborhood/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/i-wish-google-fiber-was-in-my-n... Let’s also not forget most ISPs are also large TV and phone companies so they can offer bundles or loss leaders that a new entrant like Google cannot. This is a great rundown of the many reasons why Google Fiber hasn’t gone well: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-google-fiber-failed-5-reasons/ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-google-fiber-failed... I really don’t think it was regulations that caused their biggest issues. In fact, if there had been additional regulations requiring shared access to utility poles and other infrastructure then they could have actually tried to compete on a level playing field. Instead you see things like in Louisville and Nashville where “Google faced lawsuits from incumbents over the use of existing infrastructure like utility poles to hang its fiber cables.” I’d love to hear from Pai how undoing net neutrality will suddenly get Google and much smaller players access to utility poles and other basic requirements for launching service.

rhino369 9y ago

All your reasons for impugning his integrity boil down to you disagree with him. That is narrow minded. Pai (and many economists) believe a double sided market could increase potential profits which would incentive investment so ISPs could provide a "fast lane." That isn't "somehow." They thought about and have a reason for believing what they believe. You can disagree but that doesn't make them hitler.

mrgordon 9y ago
There is no fast lane except by creating tons and tons of slow lanes. There are many ways to incentivize even our existing ISPs to invest more but he doesn’t pursue most of those. Meanwhile the actual architects of the Internet point out that he is trying to reclassify a telecommunications service as a data service (despite pretty clear definitions that make it a telecom service) in order to remove most of the FCC’s regulatory powers https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/25/fcc-doubles-down-on-its-dead-wrong-definition-of-how-the-internet-works/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/25/fcc-doubles-down-on-its-de... Whether he actually believes less regulation will help the average person or not, he is taking slimy approaches to force his opinion through (over loud complaints from Tim Berners Lee and basically every major internet player that isn’t an ISP)
mrgordon 9y ago
No actually very few of my reasons for pointing out his lack of integrity have to do with simple disagreement on policy. I would try not to label people as narrow minded based on one short comment on the Internet. This community normally does a better job of not immediately devolving into personal attacks especially when you didn’t even ask what my reasons for disliking him are. Read a much more in depth analysis in one of my other comments of his transformation of the FCC into a partisan agency, his attacks on poor people through the Lifeline program, as well as his close ties to Verizon which create a direct conflict of interest: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15781535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15781535 Not to even mention the post that started this thread about how Pai has accepted over a million fake comments on net neutrality from the telecom/ISP industries’ astroturfer lobbyists while refusing to provide enough information for NY to look into the matter (or investigating themselves) There are people playing devil’s advocate for Pai’s views but how many people actually seem to strongly want these changes? Have you met any who don’t work for Comcast, Verizon, etc.? I honestly have not

indubitable 9y ago

I am not stating he is somebody Obama would have chosen to lead the FCC, but Obama saw fit to appoint him. A democratic majority senate saw fit to approve him. I do not necessarily agree with Pai, but actually take the time to read what he says instead of snippets taken out of context and it's hardly nonsensical or untruthful. In going through this process of trying to actually discover his views, I found several interviews [1][2][3] that I found informative. His major view is that you regulate as necessary. Let people compete openly and freely with as few rules as possible. When bad behavior emerges deal with it as necessary. He is focused primarily on competition and simplifying what is required for ISPs to get in and operate. Adding hundreds of pages of rules and regulations does not really fit into the picture here. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he certainly has a perfectly cogent argument. And I think disagreeing on the right path forward is perfectly fine. A number of small ISPs have written to Pai expressing support of his plans to dismantle the rules. Others have written him expressing disagreement with those plans. This is all a far cry from calling somebody a nonsensical shill, a liar, and so on. And in the vitriol on both sides, I find most have very little understanding of what it is they're even getting so riled up about. -- Out of curiosity, if you would humor me. Why do you think Google Fiber failed to achieve significant sign ups in the region it setup in? In the ~6 years of operation to 2016 it managed an estimated 0.07million television subscribers, 0.45 million broadband subscribers. They've since rolled back further plans for expansion and engaged in lay offs in downsizing. Imagine the doomsday scenarios come true and suddenly ISPs are demanding $10 for social media, $10 for gaming, ... . What effect, if any, do you think this would have on the outcome? [1] - https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/05/526916610/fcc-chief-net-neutrality-rules-treating-internet-as-utility-stifle-growth https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/05/52... [2] - https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chair-dishes-on-plan-to-rewrite-net-neutrality-rules/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chair-dishes-on-plan-to-rewrit... [3] - https://www.recode.net/2017/5/5/15560150/transcript-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-merger-recode-decode https://www.recode.net/2017/5/5/15560150/transcript-fcc-chai...

mrgordon 9y ago
As far as the Obama appointment, let me be a bit more specific. It has been customary for a looong time for the majority party to allow the minority party to appoint two members of the FCC. In fact, legally the majority party can only have three of the five seats. So even if Obama/Congress had gone against tons of precedent and not accepted Pai as the nominee, McConnell would have just sent another similar nominee in his place. There was nothing to be gained by being obstructionist other than slowing down the appointment. I’ll look into the sources you provided and reply to that portion after I’ve had a chance to watch them. As far as Google Fiber, I think there are several reasons it hasn’t gone well. It was far more difficult and expensive than expected for them to roll it out. This had to do with many problems getting permits, digging and laying fiber, and getting sued by existing ISPs. Then the existing ISPs (who are far better at marketing their services and already have a huge user base that rarely switches providers) immediately increased bandwidth or decreased prices as soon as Google moved into new areas. Thus the consumers greatly benefited when Google Fiber arrived in their town but they had little incentive to actually switch to Google. For example, Time Warner announced in North Carolina that it was boosting its customers from 50 mbps to 300 mbps (for no additional charge) as soon as Google announced they would start rolling out fiber. See http://www.zdnet.com/article/i-wish-google-fiber-was-in-my-neighborhood/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/i-wish-google-fiber-was-in-my-n... Let’s also not forget most ISPs are also large TV and phone companies so they can offer bundles or loss leaders that a new entrant like Google cannot. This is a great rundown of the many reasons why Google Fiber hasn’t gone well: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-google-fiber-failed-5-reasons/ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-google-fiber-failed... I really don’t think it was regulations that caused their biggest issues. In fact, if there had been additional regulations requiring shared access to utility poles and other infrastructure then they could have actually tried to compete on a level playing field. Instead you see things like in Louisville and Nashville where “Google faced lawsuits from incumbents over the use of existing infrastructure like utility poles to hang its fiber cables.” I’d love to hear from Pai how undoing net neutrality will suddenly get Google and much smaller players access to utility poles and other basic requirements for launching service.