6 ms·

"Its chairman has long argued against the rules, pointing out that before they were put into effect in 2015, service providers had not engaged in any of the pra

by radisb 8y ago

"Its chairman has long argued against the rules, pointing out that before they were put into effect in 2015, service providers had not engaged in any of the practices the rules prohibited." That begs the question: Why then do they oppose the rules if only to start engaging in the practices they prohibit?

imran3740 8y ago
The argument goes that ex-ante regulation imposes unnecessary costs in the form of regulatory compliance for smaller businesses, erecting a higher barrier for entry into the ISP market. Or something like that.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  I'd be more sympathetic to that if this FCC had done anything productive to expand the competitive landscape for ISPs. Where I live we have exactly two choices, and one is satellite based.
  - imran3740 8y ago
    I mean, that is what Pai claims to be doing here: reducing regulatory burden on smaller ISPs so that more can compete. "Monday, we are ending this flawed approach and allowing smaller internet service providers to focus their efforts on deploying more broadband, connecting more Americans with digital opportunity, and offering more competition in the marketplace." [1] [1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-our-job-is-to-protect-a-free-and-open-internet/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-our-job-is-to-protect...
    - striking 8y ago
      Right, but many areas have entered into township agreements where only one provider is allowed to provide service to residents. These agreements carry fun legal print like requiring the town to reconvene with the provider before the agreement can be terminated... at which point, the provider will give whatever benefits the smaller provider was intending to provide and then some. I don't buy it. This won't change anything. Except for how less useful your internet connection would be. If the focus were on smaller ISPs, why not make the new rules target only smaller ISPs instead of all of them?
    - pseudalopex 8y ago
      How did that work out between 2005 and 2015?
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      Before 2015 they had the same regulatory landscape, and no additional competition.
      - plopz 8y ago
        Not quite. There were net netrality regulations before 2015, but it was struck down because isp's weren't under title 2, so in 2015 they were reclassified under title 2. Thats what was ended.
- trophycase 8y ago
  How could net neutrality possibly increase costs of compliance for small businesses? Net neutrality is a default state.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - imran3740 8y ago
    By virtue of this state being regulated, smaller businesses have to spend a non-trivial percentage of their money ensuring compliance with regulation.
    - dv_dt 8y ago
      This is a theory that has no backing evidence with this specific issue.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
anderber 8y ago
2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it. 2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers. 2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this) 2011-2013 - AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace 2012 - Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this) 2012 - AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money. 2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
- ilikehurdles 8y ago
  In other words, Ajit Pai is blatantly lying. These rules were put in place in response to abuses by telecoms. I'm disappointed at how little context is ever given by the media on these issues.
  - imran3740 8y ago
    I'd really like to see what he has to say in response to these events, if he has at all. This seems to be the weakest part of his overall argument. Anticompetitive violations _have_ happened in the past in the absence of Title II regulation despite his saying otherwise. That being said, (rural) ISP firms have apparently written to say they are pleased with lifting this regulation: "VTel wrote to say that 'regulating broadband like legacy telephone service would not create any incentives for VTel to invest in its network. In fact, it would have precisely the opposite effect.' The company went on to say that it's now 'quite optimistic about the future, and the current FCC is a significant reason for our optimism.' Indeed, VTel just announced that it has committed $4 million to upgrade its 4G LTE service and to begin rolling out faster mobile broadband that will start its transition to 5G, the next generation of wireless connectivity." [1] [1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-our-job-is-to-protect-a-free-and-open-internet/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-our-job-is-to-protect... edit: Okay, I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. I'm legitimately curious to hear what Pai has to say about past violations. (Seriously, if anyone has a link, please feel free.)
rhino369 8y ago
The biggest reason is that the net nuetrality rules required the FCC to also switch to Title II regualtion, which gives the FCC much broader and stronger regulatory powers. The FCC has chosen to not use those powers, but they could, for example, start regulating prices. There also might be new business models that are better for the consumer that doesn't actually cause the problems net neutrality proponents fear. For example, some of Tmobile's actions were probably not neutral, but Tmo wasn't really harming customers. In other words, we shouldn't ban something unless we know its actually harmful.
- TearsInTheRain 8y ago
  > In other words, we shouldn't ban something unless we know its actually harmful. That is like saying we shouldn't have checks on a president's power because they might be a good dictator. In the long run preventing ISP's abuses is going to be more beneficial than "beneficial" infringements on NN. Imho ISPs shouldnt have the power to determine which companies qualify for unlimited data streaming even if they aren't using that power to shut down competitors (yet)
  - skwirl 8y ago
    Saying that we shouldn't ban businesses and consumers from engaging in voluntary activities unless harm can be demonstrated is actually nothing like saying we shouldn't have checks on the president's power because they might be a good dictator. I fully support net neutrality but some of these analogies are absurd.
  - rhino369 8y ago
    That is bad analogy. NN could always be implemented later and a dictator can't just be voted out of office.
  - mmirate 8y ago
    Unchecked presidential power can do literally anything to you, without recourse. Unchecked power of an ISP can do literally anything to your internet service, and only as long as you stay with that ISP. Unchecked and abused power of an ISP also leads to other ISPs competing on "not doing the X harmful thing that Y ISP does", meaning that in the aggregate the harmful ISP loses business anyway.
TearsInTheRain 8y ago
> That begs the question: Why then do they oppose the rules if only to start engaging in the practices they prohibit? Isn't it because title 2 imposes a heavier regulatory burden than just net neutrality rules? Congress should just pass a net neutrality bill without using title 2 imho.

by radisb 8y ago

imran3740 8y ago

The argument goes that ex-ante regulation imposes unnecessary costs in the form of regulatory compliance for smaller businesses, erecting a higher barrier for entry into the ISP market. Or something like that.

Someone1234 8y ago
I'd be more sympathetic to that if this FCC had done anything productive to expand the competitive landscape for ISPs. Where I live we have exactly two choices, and one is satellite based.
- imran3740 8y ago
  I mean, that is what Pai claims to be doing here: reducing regulatory burden on smaller ISPs so that more can compete. "Monday, we are ending this flawed approach and allowing smaller internet service providers to focus their efforts on deploying more broadband, connecting more Americans with digital opportunity, and offering more competition in the marketplace." [1] [1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-our-job-is-to-protect-a-free-and-open-internet/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-our-job-is-to-protect...
  - striking 8y ago
    Right, but many areas have entered into township agreements where only one provider is allowed to provide service to residents. These agreements carry fun legal print like requiring the town to reconvene with the provider before the agreement can be terminated... at which point, the provider will give whatever benefits the smaller provider was intending to provide and then some. I don't buy it. This won't change anything. Except for how less useful your internet connection would be. If the focus were on smaller ISPs, why not make the new rules target only smaller ISPs instead of all of them?
  - pseudalopex 8y ago
    How did that work out between 2005 and 2015?
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    Before 2015 they had the same regulatory landscape, and no additional competition.
    - plopz 8y ago
      Not quite. There were net netrality regulations before 2015, but it was struck down because isp's weren't under title 2, so in 2015 they were reclassified under title 2. Thats what was ended.
trophycase 8y ago
How could net neutrality possibly increase costs of compliance for small businesses? Net neutrality is a default state.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- imran3740 8y ago
  By virtue of this state being regulated, smaller businesses have to spend a non-trivial percentage of their money ensuring compliance with regulation.
  - dv_dt 8y ago
    This is a theory that has no backing evidence with this specific issue.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

anderber 8y ago

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it. 2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers. 2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this) 2011-2013 - AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace 2012 - Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this) 2012 - AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money. 2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

ilikehurdles 8y ago
In other words, Ajit Pai is blatantly lying. These rules were put in place in response to abuses by telecoms. I'm disappointed at how little context is ever given by the media on these issues.
- imran3740 8y ago
  I'd really like to see what he has to say in response to these events, if he has at all. This seems to be the weakest part of his overall argument. Anticompetitive violations _have_ happened in the past in the absence of Title II regulation despite his saying otherwise. That being said, (rural) ISP firms have apparently written to say they are pleased with lifting this regulation: "VTel wrote to say that 'regulating broadband like legacy telephone service would not create any incentives for VTel to invest in its network. In fact, it would have precisely the opposite effect.' The company went on to say that it's now 'quite optimistic about the future, and the current FCC is a significant reason for our optimism.' Indeed, VTel just announced that it has committed $4 million to upgrade its 4G LTE service and to begin rolling out faster mobile broadband that will start its transition to 5G, the next generation of wireless connectivity." [1] [1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-our-job-is-to-protect-a-free-and-open-internet/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-our-job-is-to-protect... edit: Okay, I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. I'm legitimately curious to hear what Pai has to say about past violations. (Seriously, if anyone has a link, please feel free.)

rhino369 8y ago

The biggest reason is that the net nuetrality rules required the FCC to also switch to Title II regualtion, which gives the FCC much broader and stronger regulatory powers. The FCC has chosen to not use those powers, but they could, for example, start regulating prices. There also might be new business models that are better for the consumer that doesn't actually cause the problems net neutrality proponents fear. For example, some of Tmobile's actions were probably not neutral, but Tmo wasn't really harming customers. In other words, we shouldn't ban something unless we know its actually harmful.

TearsInTheRain 8y ago
> In other words, we shouldn't ban something unless we know its actually harmful. That is like saying we shouldn't have checks on a president's power because they might be a good dictator. In the long run preventing ISP's abuses is going to be more beneficial than "beneficial" infringements on NN. Imho ISPs shouldnt have the power to determine which companies qualify for unlimited data streaming even if they aren't using that power to shut down competitors (yet)
- skwirl 8y ago
  Saying that we shouldn't ban businesses and consumers from engaging in voluntary activities unless harm can be demonstrated is actually nothing like saying we shouldn't have checks on the president's power because they might be a good dictator. I fully support net neutrality but some of these analogies are absurd.
- rhino369 8y ago
  That is bad analogy. NN could always be implemented later and a dictator can't just be voted out of office.
- mmirate 8y ago
  Unchecked presidential power can do literally anything to you, without recourse. Unchecked power of an ISP can do literally anything to your internet service, and only as long as you stay with that ISP. Unchecked and abused power of an ISP also leads to other ISPs competing on "not doing the X harmful thing that Y ISP does", meaning that in the aggregate the harmful ISP loses business anyway.

TearsInTheRain 8y ago

> That begs the question: Why then do they oppose the rules if only to start engaging in the practices they prohibit? Isn't it because title 2 imposes a heavier regulatory burden than just net neutrality rules? Congress should just pass a net neutrality bill without using title 2 imho.