5 ms·

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. Anticompetit

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.)

djsumdog 8y ago
I just don't see how this helps innovation at all, unless they plan to actively start chopping up blocks of the Internet and offering regulated services. You literally required less hardware with network neutrality because you didn't need any packet shaping routers.
- imran3740 8y ago
  See my comment below.[1] Regulation tends to impose higher barriers to entry for smaller businesses. (See 'regulatory capture' for what happens to larger businesses.) [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17284559 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17284559
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    >Regulation tends to impose higher barriers to entry for smaller businesses Sure, they can, but what about in this specific scenario? How does NN deter small ISP's? The big ISP's already stomp out all small options anyway, I don't think NN is a problem.
    - djsumdog 8y ago
      Yea, if anything NN regulations make it easier for smaller ISPs because they don't have to buy routers that can do packet shaping, throttling or other types of filtering in order to compete with the bigger companies.
      - imran3740 8y ago
        I'm really not sure, that's Pai's argument. It seems to be a mixed bag [1][2]. Some ISPs don't mind the regulatory burden, and some don't really notice it. Bigger ISPs (like Verizon) also claim that this regulation hurts innovation, and corroborate that with a downtick in broadband investments in 2015 when the rules passed, but for all we know that could have been orchestrated. [1]: https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/13/net-neutrality-small-isp-reaction/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/13/net-neutrality-small-isp... [2]: https://www.fastcompany.com/40499904/small-isp-disputes-fcc-claim-that-net-neutrality-hurts-small-isps https://www.fastcompany.com/40499904/small-isp-disputes-fcc-...
        pseudalopex 8y ago
        ISPs' own statements contradict the investment claim.[1] [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title...
        imran3740 8y ago
        Right, which is why you could argue that downtick was orchestrated. In that article you linked Pai cited research claiming investments went down, but Free Press found otherwise.

djsumdog 8y ago

I just don't see how this helps innovation at all, unless they plan to actively start chopping up blocks of the Internet and offering regulated services. You literally required less hardware with network neutrality because you didn't need any packet shaping routers.

imran3740 8y ago
See my comment below.[1] Regulation tends to impose higher barriers to entry for smaller businesses. (See 'regulatory capture' for what happens to larger businesses.) [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17284559 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17284559
- EpicEng 8y ago
  >Regulation tends to impose higher barriers to entry for smaller businesses Sure, they can, but what about in this specific scenario? How does NN deter small ISP's? The big ISP's already stomp out all small options anyway, I don't think NN is a problem.
  - djsumdog 8y ago
    Yea, if anything NN regulations make it easier for smaller ISPs because they don't have to buy routers that can do packet shaping, throttling or other types of filtering in order to compete with the bigger companies.
    - imran3740 8y ago
      I'm really not sure, that's Pai's argument. It seems to be a mixed bag [1][2]. Some ISPs don't mind the regulatory burden, and some don't really notice it. Bigger ISPs (like Verizon) also claim that this regulation hurts innovation, and corroborate that with a downtick in broadband investments in 2015 when the rules passed, but for all we know that could have been orchestrated. [1]: https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/13/net-neutrality-small-isp-reaction/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/13/net-neutrality-small-isp... [2]: https://www.fastcompany.com/40499904/small-isp-disputes-fcc-claim-that-net-neutrality-hurts-small-isps https://www.fastcompany.com/40499904/small-isp-disputes-fcc-...
      - pseudalopex 8y ago
        ISPs' own statements contradict the investment claim.[1] [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title...
        imran3740 8y ago
        Right, which is why you could argue that downtick was orchestrated. In that article you linked Pai cited research claiming investments went down, but Free Press found otherwise.