Hacker News Reader

Comment by jahabrewer | Hacker News Reader

Feel pretty jaded about this after reading Ben Thompson on Title II: https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/

Sidebar: I was 1000% pro-Title II last time this came up in 2015 and went through https://www.battleforthenet.com/ , I think to email my legislators.

Fortunately, I used a tagged/aliased email address. That address has apparently gotten into the Democrats' "never lose this email" bin. I regularly get emails from politicians I absolutely never wanted to hear from, all to that email. I try to unsubscribe, but they won't let me go.

View on HN

Thanks for that link but I'm having trouble parsing Ben Thompson's argument.He says that he's in favor of net neutrality but against this specific regulation.

Why?

Because...I think...at some point somebody fell for a fake tweet? Also because regulation is bad because of..completely unrelated example of regulatory excess involving restaurants in SF?

I mean, is he saying he's against any regulation of anything, now? Or just against Title II? I'm sure he can't seriously mean the former. But as to the latter, I honestly missed the part where he substantiates why Title II specifically is excessive.

Seriously, I think I clearly missed a crucial step in his argument.

You're right--I don't read a specific "here's the onerous parts of Title II" bit in that article. I think his argument is that:

1. The problems that supporters say net neutrality would fix are fictitious (the tweet), already handled (Comcast and bittorrent traffic), or not necessarily addressed by net neutrality (zero rating)

2. Title II classification entails much more regulation than net neutrality

3. Therefore applying Title II to ISPs will raise the barrier to entry for new entrants and not address the supposed harms

> at some point somebody fell for a fake tweet?

Not just "somebody"--the guy who coined the term "net neutrality" and advises the government.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Even there I think he's presuming some bad outcomes and discounting good ones, but I do understand the reasoning. I appreciate your reply.

If you wish to comment to the FCC about it, you can do so here:

https://www.fcc.gov/document/proposing-reestablished-open-in...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com