7 ms·

Isn't Pai just advocating going back to the pre-2015 regulatory structure? Was the internet really so bad prior to 2015?

by pbreit 9y ago

masklinn 9y ago
He's very specifically advocating going back to the structure between 2005 and 2015. And there were lots of issues despite likely way less emboldened ISPs: https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7ej1nd/fcc_unveils_its_plan_to_repeal_net_neutrality/dq5hlwd/?sh=45a33b81&st=JAA62V5F https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7ej1nd/fcc_u... The 2015 move was actually because the FCC had been repeatedly challenged by bolder and bolder ISPs over its rules, and the courts ultimately stated that the FCC didn't have the authority to stop ISP shenanigans and enforce its Neutrality rules under Title I in 2014, hence the reclassification under Title II. So yes, the internet was quickly getting worse prior to 2015, and it was not a "steady state" as it had started from much more stringent regulations (than the 2015 regime) back in 2005, things had progressively gotten worse over a decade before coming to a head.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > He's very specifically advocating going back to the structure between 2005 and 2015. The courts struck down the 2005-2010 structure in 2010, and the 2010-2014 structure in 2014. 2014-2015 was unregulated, but all actors knew that the FCC was going to come out with some new neutrality regulation, so no big player was going to put effort into exploiting the unregulated state and build an unsustainable business model around it. It is impossible to return to any of the three states of neutrality enforcement that existed between 2005 and 2015. And Ajit Pai knows that, so if he's calling for that it is intensely dishonest.
  - libertyEQ 9y ago
    In this very subthread, we have seasoned HNers, all of whom I've agreed with over the years of reading comments from all 3 of you. I believe you all have a sound grasp of logic, and I think there is some common ground you could all agree on. It does worry me that you all aren't having a productive discussion, and are seemingly talking past each other. If such reasonable and knowledgeable people (as evidenced by HN history) are unwilling to drill down and establish an agreed set of fact and principles, what hope do we have at a national level?
    - croon 9y ago
      Could you elaborate on who you mean, and what facts you think are unclear? Also your account is 46 days old, so I'm unsure what you know about seasoned HNers. Sorry if I'm incorrect, but I read your comment as trying to seed distrust, as if the issue isn't clear and no side is right. This is incorrect.
      - libertyEQ 9y ago
        So, you think that the age of my account specifically indicates how long I've been on HN? That is come serious lack of logic. I guess I could drag my old laptop out, and retrieve my downvote-able credentials, and come after you. I would prefer to discuss issues, but I guess you should be on the lookout...
colept 9y ago
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... That argument is akin to saying "let's strip the regulations because ___ wasn't so bad before." Should it be terrible in order for us to realize when regulations are in our best interest? Should we go back to cars without seatbelts because at one point it wasn't so bad? Should we de-regulate smoking because it wasn't really so bad in the 40's?
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  No, the argument is worse than that because it is intentionally inaccurate. The re-framing it aims to perform is misleading and distracts from the issue.
  - jack9 9y ago
    > No, the argument is worse than that because it is intentionally inaccurate. Seems on the nose to me shrug
    - ABCLAW 9y ago
      Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. See the following summary or check any of the synopses in the thread about the historical background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... You aren't going back in time. The FCC will not have the tools it did prior to Title II enactment to enforce NN. This is WHY Title II classification is in place.
      - jack9 9y ago
        > Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. I have, so that's not compelling. I'm interpreting the statement in the proper context, at a practical level. We're a little far removed from the statement, so look at it again: That argument is akin to saying "let's strip the regulations because ___ wasn't so bad before." That's correct in context. Of course you have to start with some new (Ajit's plan isn't just remove Title II) and some pre-existing conditions. The consequences he posits are unrealistic because technical capability is different (but he won't address that). There's not much to say when opposition spokesholes starts taking a purposefully phrased metaphor literally as a premise. SMH
ABCLAW 9y ago
No he isn't. Internet was fine in 2015 because the FCC was working fairly hard to prevent ISPs from shitting it up. Please read the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... As a side note. I can't help but feel like this comment is insincere - if it isn't, I apologize. Understanding enough about the issue to believe Pai's attempt is a rollback indicates that a poster would have read or skimmed some of the voluminious NN-related material. In every comments section, this 'rollback' argument is trotted out. In every comments section it is soundly refuted with evidence, as it is low-effort FUD. So why does it keep popping up?
- ShabbosGoy 9y ago
  Because it is a rollback "The FCC will vote on Dec. 12 whether to roll back 2015 rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or throttling content, or from selling “fast lanes” so major companies can get speedier access to consumers. Net neutrality activists say such rules are necessary to prevent the internet from being walled off, where access is restricted by ISPs or where certain sites have an unfair advantage over others."[1] Today, certain sites already have an unfair advantage over others due to peering and PNIs. Can my startup afford to put a CDN box and colo @ Verizon? Of course not. So my startup is already at a disadvantage to Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. The end result is that Netflix will have to renegotiate their peering rates. How does this affect the consumer? The short answer is it doesn't. [1] http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/fcc-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-harassment-1202624432/ http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/fcc-ajit-pai-net-neutrality...
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    No, it isn't. Removing Title II classification does not get us back to the rules that governed the internet in 2015. The FCC issued the Open Internet Order in 2010. Verizon sued them within a month. In 2014, Verizon won the case, in part, but the court explicitly recognized that the ISPs represented a serious threat to the internet, as it was, and indicated the FCC had other options for regulating. Within a month following the case, there were widespread public consultations. A month later the FCC said they would act. Shortly thereafter, the FCC went with the only option that remained: Title II classification. The pre-Title II internet had net neutrality. We're moving into a segment of time where that is gone. The rollback of Title II classification does not also roll back the limitations on the FCC imposed by the courts. So no, it isn't a rollback. Stop spreading FUD.
takeda 9y ago
That's in theory, but I explained it here[1] why it won't be the same. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15799811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15799811
nobleach 9y ago
I think the issue is that it was trending that way. Comcast was purposely slowing certain traffic that competed with their own product. Many that remember trying to use Netflix around 2014, remember the 5pm nightmare. This lead to the discussion about the difference between bandwidth and content. It's fair to charge for more bandwidth usage. It's not fair to charge based on _what_ is flowing through "the tubes".
dragonwriter 9y ago
Once Ajit Pai gets Congress or the Supreme Court to undo the legal effect of the decisions which struck down the 2005-2010 and 2010-2014 regulatory structures, then he can talk about returning to them. Otherwise, he's just saying let's not enforce neutrality, and hope people will believe the results will be just like when we were enforcing neutrality using tools that the courts have since taken away from the FCC, specifically pointing to Title II as the viable alternative.

Isn't Pai just advocating going back to the pre-2015 regulatory structure? Was the internet really so bad prior to 2015?

by pbreit 9y ago

Isn't Pai just advocating going back to the pre-2015 regulatory structure? Was the internet really so bad prior to 2015?

masklinn 9y ago

He's very specifically advocating going back to the structure between 2005 and 2015. And there were lots of issues despite likely way less emboldened ISPs: https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7ej1nd/fcc_unveils_its_plan_to_repeal_net_neutrality/dq5hlwd/?sh=45a33b81&st=JAA62V5F https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7ej1nd/fcc_u... The 2015 move was actually because the FCC had been repeatedly challenged by bolder and bolder ISPs over its rules, and the courts ultimately stated that the FCC didn't have the authority to stop ISP shenanigans and enforce its Neutrality rules under Title I in 2014, hence the reclassification under Title II. So yes, the internet was quickly getting worse prior to 2015, and it was not a "steady state" as it had started from much more stringent regulations (than the 2015 regime) back in 2005, things had progressively gotten worse over a decade before coming to a head.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> He's very specifically advocating going back to the structure between 2005 and 2015. The courts struck down the 2005-2010 structure in 2010, and the 2010-2014 structure in 2014. 2014-2015 was unregulated, but all actors knew that the FCC was going to come out with some new neutrality regulation, so no big player was going to put effort into exploiting the unregulated state and build an unsustainable business model around it. It is impossible to return to any of the three states of neutrality enforcement that existed between 2005 and 2015. And Ajit Pai knows that, so if he's calling for that it is intensely dishonest.
- libertyEQ 9y ago
  In this very subthread, we have seasoned HNers, all of whom I've agreed with over the years of reading comments from all 3 of you. I believe you all have a sound grasp of logic, and I think there is some common ground you could all agree on. It does worry me that you all aren't having a productive discussion, and are seemingly talking past each other. If such reasonable and knowledgeable people (as evidenced by HN history) are unwilling to drill down and establish an agreed set of fact and principles, what hope do we have at a national level?
  - croon 9y ago
    Could you elaborate on who you mean, and what facts you think are unclear? Also your account is 46 days old, so I'm unsure what you know about seasoned HNers. Sorry if I'm incorrect, but I read your comment as trying to seed distrust, as if the issue isn't clear and no side is right. This is incorrect.
    - libertyEQ 9y ago
      So, you think that the age of my account specifically indicates how long I've been on HN? That is come serious lack of logic. I guess I could drag my old laptop out, and retrieve my downvote-able credentials, and come after you. I would prefer to discuss issues, but I guess you should be on the lookout...

colept 9y ago

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... That argument is akin to saying "let's strip the regulations because ___ wasn't so bad before." Should it be terrible in order for us to realize when regulations are in our best interest? Should we go back to cars without seatbelts because at one point it wasn't so bad? Should we de-regulate smoking because it wasn't really so bad in the 40's?

ABCLAW 9y ago
No, the argument is worse than that because it is intentionally inaccurate. The re-framing it aims to perform is misleading and distracts from the issue.
- jack9 9y ago
  > No, the argument is worse than that because it is intentionally inaccurate. Seems on the nose to me shrug
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. See the following summary or check any of the synopses in the thread about the historical background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... You aren't going back in time. The FCC will not have the tools it did prior to Title II enactment to enforce NN. This is WHY Title II classification is in place.
    - jack9 9y ago
      > Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. I have, so that's not compelling. I'm interpreting the statement in the proper context, at a practical level. We're a little far removed from the statement, so look at it again: That argument is akin to saying "let's strip the regulations because ___ wasn't so bad before." That's correct in context. Of course you have to start with some new (Ajit's plan isn't just remove Title II) and some pre-existing conditions. The consequences he posits are unrealistic because technical capability is different (but he won't address that). There's not much to say when opposition spokesholes starts taking a purposefully phrased metaphor literally as a premise. SMH

ABCLAW 9y ago

No he isn't. Internet was fine in 2015 because the FCC was working fairly hard to prevent ISPs from shitting it up. Please read the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... As a side note. I can't help but feel like this comment is insincere - if it isn't, I apologize. Understanding enough about the issue to believe Pai's attempt is a rollback indicates that a poster would have read or skimmed some of the voluminious NN-related material. In every comments section, this 'rollback' argument is trotted out. In every comments section it is soundly refuted with evidence, as it is low-effort FUD. So why does it keep popping up?

ShabbosGoy 9y ago
Because it is a rollback "The FCC will vote on Dec. 12 whether to roll back 2015 rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or throttling content, or from selling “fast lanes” so major companies can get speedier access to consumers. Net neutrality activists say such rules are necessary to prevent the internet from being walled off, where access is restricted by ISPs or where certain sites have an unfair advantage over others."[1] Today, certain sites already have an unfair advantage over others due to peering and PNIs. Can my startup afford to put a CDN box and colo @ Verizon? Of course not. So my startup is already at a disadvantage to Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. The end result is that Netflix will have to renegotiate their peering rates. How does this affect the consumer? The short answer is it doesn't. [1] http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/fcc-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-harassment-1202624432/ http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/fcc-ajit-pai-net-neutrality...
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  No, it isn't. Removing Title II classification does not get us back to the rules that governed the internet in 2015. The FCC issued the Open Internet Order in 2010. Verizon sued them within a month. In 2014, Verizon won the case, in part, but the court explicitly recognized that the ISPs represented a serious threat to the internet, as it was, and indicated the FCC had other options for regulating. Within a month following the case, there were widespread public consultations. A month later the FCC said they would act. Shortly thereafter, the FCC went with the only option that remained: Title II classification. The pre-Title II internet had net neutrality. We're moving into a segment of time where that is gone. The rollback of Title II classification does not also roll back the limitations on the FCC imposed by the courts. So no, it isn't a rollback. Stop spreading FUD.

takeda 9y ago

That's in theory, but I explained it here[1] why it won't be the same. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15799811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15799811

nobleach 9y ago

I think the issue is that it was trending that way. Comcast was purposely slowing certain traffic that competed with their own product. Many that remember trying to use Netflix around 2014, remember the 5pm nightmare. This lead to the discussion about the difference between bandwidth and content. It's fair to charge for more bandwidth usage. It's not fair to charge based on _what_ is flowing through "the tubes".

dragonwriter 9y ago

Once Ajit Pai gets Congress or the Supreme Court to undo the legal effect of the decisions which struck down the 2005-2010 and 2010-2014 regulatory structures, then he can talk about returning to them. Otherwise, he's just saying let's not enforce neutrality, and hope people will believe the results will be just like when we were enforcing neutrality using tools that the courts have since taken away from the FCC, specifically pointing to Title II as the viable alternative.