4 ms·

I’m a weekly listener of Ben Thompson’s (the author) podcast, exponent, and it’s bizarre that he’s making this argument. Many of the last few episodes have made

I’m a weekly listener of Ben Thompson’s (the author) podcast, exponent, and it’s bizarre that he’s making this argument. Many of the last few episodes have made the point that over-burdensome regulation on Facebook would have the affect of harming small businesses’ abilities to advertise themselves along side large incumbents. It’s strange to see him make what appears to be the opposite argument here. Your point is well made and well taken!

throwaway23497 9y ago
But he's making the same argument that you say he was making on his podcast. Regulation has a cost. The article literally states: "To believe that Chairman Pai is right is not to be against net neutrality; rather, it is to believe that the FCC’s 2015 approach was mistaken." The FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate ISP's as the law is written. To get around this in 2015 they "reclassified" ISP's from information services to telecommunications services. This allowed them expansive authority over ISP's. It also applies a bunch of archaic rules that were meant for ma-bell and in no way apply to modern internet services. If network neutrality is important to you then call your congressmen and tell them to pass a law that actually codifies it. If you think your ISP is being a bad actor, then send a report to the FTC. You know the agency that's tasked with preventing and punishing anti-competitive behavior....
- zaksoup 9y ago
  Did you create an account specifically to throw FUD around in this thread? Why not sign your name to your milquetoast opinions on net neutrality?
- dd36 9y ago
  The FCC is exempting the ISPs from those archaic rules. Who is going to challenge the FCC on that? So this guy is arguing that NN is bad under Title II so we should pass a different law to regulate it? So new regulations without a long history of case law? And that’s less burdensome?
  - apple4ever 9y ago
    Yes exactly. Then we have a properly written law to address the issue, not shoehorn in the issue into an old unrelated law. And that is much less burdensome. The FCC is right now exempting the ISPs, but that could change under a new administration, and that should be greatly feared.
    - dd36 9y ago
      That’s a red herring. Then pass the law. Title II is the only solution until then per the courts. If the ISPs are exempt from the archaic rules, then there’s literally nothing but imaginary future harm. As where we’ve seen real abuses by ISPs. Pai is not acting in the public interest.
    - ABCLAW 9y ago
      Want to know how these things are done normally when actual legislative reform is contemplated? First you draft a bill. Then you have a bunch of people debate the bill. Then you have the bill have a section which describes how it comes into force, listing deadlines, target dates for various provisions, etc. That way you can phase the Title II -> Legislation transfer smoothly. That isn't what's happening here. There is no discussion about amending legislation, nor has the FCC discussed implementing non-Title II forms of Open Internet Style regulation. Because they can't.
- lightbyte 9y ago
  >To get around this in 2015 they "reclassified" ISP's from information services to telecommunications services. telecommunication: Any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writings, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems (CS). [1] It sure sounds like ISP's should in fact be classified as telecommunications services to me. [1] https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/oth/02/02/S02020000244501PDFE.PDF https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/oth/02/02/S02020000244501P... - Article 1.3
snappyTertle 9y ago
His arguments are the same. Regulation causes burdens. Government regulating enforcing their version of net neutrality is a burden on the market.
thisisit 9y ago
Just landed on the podcast's page: http://exponent.fm/ http://exponent.fm/ only to find the top page fold is a giant ad for wordpress.com What is up with that?
- scarface74 9y ago
  I've been following Ben Thompson for a few years. His comments are usually insightful on both his blog and podcast. He has a different advertising model. He has one advertised at a time. His last advertiser MailChimp sponsored the podcast for an entire year. He also has a decently popular paid email newsletter. The only time he spoke about the number of subscribers was about two years ago and he had a little over 2000 then paying $100 a night. He's worked at Microsoft and Apple.

throwaway23497 9y ago

But he's making the same argument that you say he was making on his podcast. Regulation has a cost. The article literally states: "To believe that Chairman Pai is right is not to be against net neutrality; rather, it is to believe that the FCC’s 2015 approach was mistaken." The FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate ISP's as the law is written. To get around this in 2015 they "reclassified" ISP's from information services to telecommunications services. This allowed them expansive authority over ISP's. It also applies a bunch of archaic rules that were meant for ma-bell and in no way apply to modern internet services. If network neutrality is important to you then call your congressmen and tell them to pass a law that actually codifies it. If you think your ISP is being a bad actor, then send a report to the FTC. You know the agency that's tasked with preventing and punishing anti-competitive behavior....

zaksoup 9y ago
Did you create an account specifically to throw FUD around in this thread? Why not sign your name to your milquetoast opinions on net neutrality?
dd36 9y ago
The FCC is exempting the ISPs from those archaic rules. Who is going to challenge the FCC on that? So this guy is arguing that NN is bad under Title II so we should pass a different law to regulate it? So new regulations without a long history of case law? And that’s less burdensome?
- apple4ever 9y ago
  Yes exactly. Then we have a properly written law to address the issue, not shoehorn in the issue into an old unrelated law. And that is much less burdensome. The FCC is right now exempting the ISPs, but that could change under a new administration, and that should be greatly feared.
  - dd36 9y ago
    That’s a red herring. Then pass the law. Title II is the only solution until then per the courts. If the ISPs are exempt from the archaic rules, then there’s literally nothing but imaginary future harm. As where we’ve seen real abuses by ISPs. Pai is not acting in the public interest.
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    Want to know how these things are done normally when actual legislative reform is contemplated? First you draft a bill. Then you have a bunch of people debate the bill. Then you have the bill have a section which describes how it comes into force, listing deadlines, target dates for various provisions, etc. That way you can phase the Title II -> Legislation transfer smoothly. That isn't what's happening here. There is no discussion about amending legislation, nor has the FCC discussed implementing non-Title II forms of Open Internet Style regulation. Because they can't.
lightbyte 9y ago
>To get around this in 2015 they "reclassified" ISP's from information services to telecommunications services. telecommunication: Any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writings, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems (CS). [1] It sure sounds like ISP's should in fact be classified as telecommunications services to me. [1] https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/oth/02/02/S02020000244501PDFE.PDF https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/oth/02/02/S02020000244501P... - Article 1.3

snappyTertle 9y ago

His arguments are the same. Regulation causes burdens. Government regulating enforcing their version of net neutrality is a burden on the market.

thisisit 9y ago

Just landed on the podcast's page: http://exponent.fm/ http://exponent.fm/ only to find the top page fold is a giant ad for wordpress.com What is up with that?

scarface74 9y ago
I've been following Ben Thompson for a few years. His comments are usually insightful on both his blog and podcast. He has a different advertising model. He has one advertised at a time. His last advertiser MailChimp sponsored the podcast for an entire year. He also has a decently popular paid email newsletter. The only time he spoke about the number of subscribers was about two years ago and he had a little over 2000 then paying $100 a night. He's worked at Microsoft and Apple.