The current NN repeal is working out exactly the way Pai said it would. As he cited, the problem is lack of competition. The solution is competition. All the discussion happening today is about how to start an ISP to prevent cable monopolies abusing their position.
The repeal is working exactly the way Pai said it would. It is encouraging new ISP entrants. Startup ISPs are the answer. NN supporters still don't realize they've been on the wrong side the entire time.
I am trying extremely hard to not purely lash out at you, but to civilly converse, here. But you're completely wrong.
Yes, competition would absolutely be better for everyone. There is not a single NN supporter out there who would not love more competition. But we still have to live in the real world. And in the real world, there flat out is no competition. And in many places, particularly rural and inner-city areas, there likely is not enough of a customer base to support multiple ISPs. And, as I said, we do not have competition now. Repealing Net Neutrality is this environment is nothing more than an anti-consumer move. It absolutely is required now, to protect consumer interests. If we were in an environment where market forces could work, then you would have an argument that NN is not needed. But, once again, to stress the point, we do not live in that environment. Getting rid of NN before that environment comes is utter foolishness, and does nothing but serve to turn the internet into Cable TV.
What do you not like about more competition and how does that relate to anarchists (which, depending on flavor, are often pro-competition and diversity in choice as it's often a prerequisite for a well functioning anarchic society).
His argument appears to be that it was too much paperwork for a startup ISP. I have to admit I have no idea if this is the case, but it seems like someone running cables/fiber across a private land should already be adept at filing out paperwork.
It's likely cherry-picked. There are many small ISPs who signed a letter saying otherwise:
> We [ISPs across the country] have encountered no new additional barriers to investment or deployment as a result of the 2015 decision to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and have long supported network neutrality as a core principle for the deployment of networks for the American public to access the Internet.
"The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It’s that they don’t have access at all or enough competition. These regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, investment in high-speed networks has declined by billions of dollars. Notably, this is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the Internet era."
"The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers. They don’t have the time, money, or lawyers to navigate a thicket of complex rules."
"the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that typically operate in rural America, surveyed its members and found that over 80% “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.” Other small companies, too, have told the FCC that these regulations have forced them to cancel, delay, or curtail fiber network upgrades. And nearly two dozen small providers submitted a letter saying the FCC’s heavy-handed rules “affect our ability to find financing.”"
"a coalition of 19 municipal Internet service providers—that is, city-owned nonprofits—have told the FCC that they “often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because [they] cannot afford to deal with a potential complaint and enforcement action.”"
There are specific examples in the comments I quoted. Mr Pai named more specific examples in the transcript I linked to. You seem to be in a state of blind rage and unable to read anything.
If you'd like a deep dive level of information, you could try contacting some of the named companies and associations, like
> You seem to be in a state of blind rage and unable to read anything.
This is not how you do discourse on the internet — asserting the emotional state (or ability to read) of people on the other side of the screen. I'm quite calm, thanks; I simply reject Pai's agenda-serving statements as anything but agenda-serving (and also a little bit "appeal to authority", but I'm not feeling terribly inclined to chase that notion down the fallacy rabbit hole when I have so much work to do I'm only now breaking for lunch, so whatever).
Please do what you've repeatedly been asked in this thread and cite examples, not propaganda.
I really don't find a lobbyist organization's web site to be any more compelling than Pai's comments, sorry. They're going to offer just as much cherry-picked, agenda-serving propaganda as he is, and won't discuss the issue honestly or transparently either.
Until the line infrastructure is no longer owned by the monopolistic ISP / cable companies, talking about competition is all pie in the sky.
The problem is a portion of the US has no good network infrastructure. Another significant portion of the US has only 1 provider servicing them with decent internet connectivity.
A new market entrant will need years to dig and install adequate coverage for even urban US locations. Meanwhile, the US consumer will suffer shit service and outright market manipulation.
The repeal is working exactly the way Pai said it would. It is encouraging new ISP entrants. Startup ISPs are the answer. NN supporters still don't realize they've been on the wrong side the entire time.