6 ms·

> FCC Chairman Ajit Pai rejected this argument, saying that startups are unnecessarily delayed when they have to wait for incumbent ISPs before hanging wires.

> FCC Chairman Ajit Pai rejected this argument, saying that startups are unnecessarily delayed when they have to wait for incumbent ISPs before hanging wires. I thought I was supposed to not like this guy.

craftyguy 8y ago
Even a broken clock is right twice a day (unless it's a digital clock then it's wrong all the time since it's not showing anything, but I digress).
dylan604 8y ago
This does seem very 180 degree different than his stance on net neutrality. The tin foil hat wearing side of me says that Google's donations must have been larger than Comcast's. The real world side of me can't figure out how somebody can logically justify these two opposing views.
- thephyber 8y ago
  > The tin foil hat wearing side of me says that Google's donations must have been larger than Comcast's I'm curious: donations to whom? The FCC doesn't have campaigns, so any "donations" aren't campaign contributions.
  - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
    “Who are your friends? Let me know and I’ll donate to them if....”
    - dylan604 8y ago
      Exactly. "A gift was made to xxx in your name". A bag with large $$$ printed on the side being handed over is just for the comics. In the real world, "donations" is just a word with multiple meanings.
  - adrr 8y ago
    Whoever offers the highest paid lobbying job after they are done with their term. Legal bribery.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    In the case of executive agencies like this, usually it's the revolving door effect. Such as Joshua Wright's cushy job with one of Google's law firms after his tenure as the FCC Commissioner. You guarantee that if someone takes care of X issue for you, they'll get a really high paying job with almost no actual work involved when you leave.
- vturner 8y ago
  In a framework of deregulation, there is no 180 here. He is simply following through on general smaller government principles. When we removed net neutrality, the fear was the monopolies will rule us all! Well, how do those monopolies stay in power? Typically, corrupt regulation such as what was removed here.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    > Well, how do those monopolies stay in power? Typically, corrupt regulation such as what was removed here Well, and the natural monopoly of an upfront capital intensive venture that might not pay for itself if you only get 50% of the market...
  - p1necone 8y ago
    Fwiw I live in a country with no net neutrality laws but reasonably healthy competition between ISPs (New Zealand) and it seems to work out alright. I feel like the right order of operations if you did believe in deregulation and encouraging competition would be to ensure there was competition between ISPs and then remove the net neutrality laws though, not the other way around. I still think internet access should be treated similarly to water/power etc though.
    - geomark 8y ago
      My anecdote is similar, re healthy competition. It's even less regulated here in Thailand, which is good for competition and consumers, but does lead to messes like this https://www.bangkokpost.com/media/content/dcx/2016/06/30/1849761_620x413.jpg https://www.bangkokpost.com/media/content/dcx/2016/06/30/184... where a dozen or more telecommunication providers each hang their own cabling. The posts actually collapse sometimes due to the weight of the cabling.
      - sambull 8y ago
        And that's the regulation that makes last mile impossible.
    - deleted 8y ago
- SkyPuncher 8y ago
  I believe the theoretical arguments against net neutrality are actually extremely sound. Prioritized traffic could solve some significant network issues. Realistically, we know it will be abused.
- tbyehl 8y ago
  Verizon supported it. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/ajit-pai-jokes-about-being-a-brainwashed-verizon-puppet-at-the-fcc/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/ajit-pai-jokes-a...
- matte_black 8y ago
  It’s not a 180 if he truly believes that removing Net Neutrality would increase competition amongst ISPs.
  - adventured 8y ago
    Net neutrality was in place for all of five minutes. Keeping it or removing it won't do anything to spur connection competition. There are three options. 1. Technology inflection forces greater competition, such as Starlink or 5G. 1a would be that an extremely deep pocket competitor forces some improvement; that works at least temporarily, however I'm skeptical that's sustainable (as witnessed by Google's pull-back). 2. The government makes smart decisions regulation wise, that help to smooth a path for increased competition. That includes things like one touch make ready, dig once fiber rules, and blocking munis from signing cable/etc monopoly agreements. 3. Nationalize the infrastructure and allow anyone to rent it. That's too far fetched (unrealistic) for the US as a mostly market system, to go that direction from a heavily privatized market. 3a would be, pass a law stipulating that muni broadband can't be impeded, if a city or town wants to set up its own network it's legally entitled to attempt it. Every bit of added competition around the country helps. Any combination of those is a big assist. The US is a top 15 broadband country currently, and most of the nations in front of it are tiny (except Japan and South Korea, both of which have hyper population concentration in just a few cities). We've made tremendous progress from how far we were lagging behind just six or seven years ago. Keep throwing more of the above onto that momentum, and it will keep the US competitive in that top echelon, which is a great outcome. Any time a country the size of the US (not just eg a state like Massachusetts) can keep up with countries like Denmark, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden on broadband, or any infrastructure frankly, it's a big deal.
- voidwtf 8y ago
  Alternatively, this benefits Verizon and other wireless carriers who are on the cusp of deploying tons of microcells for 5G. It would be terribly inconvenient for them to have to go through the same process for their 5G deployment. That's where I'm placing my bet.
thephyber 8y ago
You can still dislike him because of his personality (a regulator with a trollish personality). That doesn't mean you will never agree with his policy prescriptions. Also, I realize your comment was probably some combination of jest or sarcasm.
tw04 8y ago
He's getting scared the Mueller investigation is going to start looking into him. Second one of these types of decisions in the last month. I guess the Russian brigade has found its way here too, unfortunate. In any case: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/fcc-votes-against-sinclairtribune-merger-likely-dooming-deal/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/fcc-votes-agains...

craftyguy 8y ago

Even a broken clock is right twice a day (unless it's a digital clock then it's wrong all the time since it's not showing anything, but I digress).

dylan604 8y ago

This does seem very 180 degree different than his stance on net neutrality. The tin foil hat wearing side of me says that Google's donations must have been larger than Comcast's. The real world side of me can't figure out how somebody can logically justify these two opposing views.

thephyber 8y ago
> The tin foil hat wearing side of me says that Google's donations must have been larger than Comcast's I'm curious: donations to whom? The FCC doesn't have campaigns, so any "donations" aren't campaign contributions.
- TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  “Who are your friends? Let me know and I’ll donate to them if....”
  - dylan604 8y ago
    Exactly. "A gift was made to xxx in your name". A bag with large $$$ printed on the side being handed over is just for the comics. In the real world, "donations" is just a word with multiple meanings.
- adrr 8y ago
  Whoever offers the highest paid lobbying job after they are done with their term. Legal bribery.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  In the case of executive agencies like this, usually it's the revolving door effect. Such as Joshua Wright's cushy job with one of Google's law firms after his tenure as the FCC Commissioner. You guarantee that if someone takes care of X issue for you, they'll get a really high paying job with almost no actual work involved when you leave.
vturner 8y ago
In a framework of deregulation, there is no 180 here. He is simply following through on general smaller government principles. When we removed net neutrality, the fear was the monopolies will rule us all! Well, how do those monopolies stay in power? Typically, corrupt regulation such as what was removed here.
- monocasa 8y ago
  > Well, how do those monopolies stay in power? Typically, corrupt regulation such as what was removed here Well, and the natural monopoly of an upfront capital intensive venture that might not pay for itself if you only get 50% of the market...
- p1necone 8y ago
  Fwiw I live in a country with no net neutrality laws but reasonably healthy competition between ISPs (New Zealand) and it seems to work out alright. I feel like the right order of operations if you did believe in deregulation and encouraging competition would be to ensure there was competition between ISPs and then remove the net neutrality laws though, not the other way around. I still think internet access should be treated similarly to water/power etc though.
  - geomark 8y ago
    My anecdote is similar, re healthy competition. It's even less regulated here in Thailand, which is good for competition and consumers, but does lead to messes like this https://www.bangkokpost.com/media/content/dcx/2016/06/30/1849761_620x413.jpg https://www.bangkokpost.com/media/content/dcx/2016/06/30/184... where a dozen or more telecommunication providers each hang their own cabling. The posts actually collapse sometimes due to the weight of the cabling.
    - sambull 8y ago
      And that's the regulation that makes last mile impossible.
  - deleted 8y ago
SkyPuncher 8y ago
I believe the theoretical arguments against net neutrality are actually extremely sound. Prioritized traffic could solve some significant network issues. Realistically, we know it will be abused.
tbyehl 8y ago
Verizon supported it. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/ajit-pai-jokes-about-being-a-brainwashed-verizon-puppet-at-the-fcc/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/ajit-pai-jokes-a...
matte_black 8y ago
It’s not a 180 if he truly believes that removing Net Neutrality would increase competition amongst ISPs.
- adventured 8y ago
  Net neutrality was in place for all of five minutes. Keeping it or removing it won't do anything to spur connection competition. There are three options. 1. Technology inflection forces greater competition, such as Starlink or 5G. 1a would be that an extremely deep pocket competitor forces some improvement; that works at least temporarily, however I'm skeptical that's sustainable (as witnessed by Google's pull-back). 2. The government makes smart decisions regulation wise, that help to smooth a path for increased competition. That includes things like one touch make ready, dig once fiber rules, and blocking munis from signing cable/etc monopoly agreements. 3. Nationalize the infrastructure and allow anyone to rent it. That's too far fetched (unrealistic) for the US as a mostly market system, to go that direction from a heavily privatized market. 3a would be, pass a law stipulating that muni broadband can't be impeded, if a city or town wants to set up its own network it's legally entitled to attempt it. Every bit of added competition around the country helps. Any combination of those is a big assist. The US is a top 15 broadband country currently, and most of the nations in front of it are tiny (except Japan and South Korea, both of which have hyper population concentration in just a few cities). We've made tremendous progress from how far we were lagging behind just six or seven years ago. Keep throwing more of the above onto that momentum, and it will keep the US competitive in that top echelon, which is a great outcome. Any time a country the size of the US (not just eg a state like Massachusetts) can keep up with countries like Denmark, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden on broadband, or any infrastructure frankly, it's a big deal.
voidwtf 8y ago
Alternatively, this benefits Verizon and other wireless carriers who are on the cusp of deploying tons of microcells for 5G. It would be terribly inconvenient for them to have to go through the same process for their 5G deployment. That's where I'm placing my bet.

thephyber 8y ago

You can still dislike him because of his personality (a regulator with a trollish personality). That doesn't mean you will never agree with his policy prescriptions. Also, I realize your comment was probably some combination of jest or sarcasm.

tw04 8y ago

He's getting scared the Mueller investigation is going to start looking into him. Second one of these types of decisions in the last month. I guess the Russian brigade has found its way here too, unfortunate. In any case: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/fcc-votes-against-sinclairtribune-merger-likely-dooming-deal/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/fcc-votes-agains...