A Net Neutrality Chat with Paul from Paul's Hardware! | Level One Techs

Be sure to check out Paul's version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3k0xQ7Rha0

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://level1techs.com/video/net-neutrality-chat-paul-pauls-hardware






I need the links to those articles mentioned in this video. Can somebody please give me those ? Please ??

They are on Paul’s vid


I’ve compiled the list from pauls video if anyone wants to read the articles as YouTube sometimes does some wonky stuff with link redirection.

# What is Title II?

# The FCC’s Argument for the “Restoring Internet Freedom” Order

# ISPs Seek to Prohibit State-Enforced Net Neutrality

# A Brief History of Net Neutrality Violations

# the ruling (pdf)

# "Entrepreneurs and Startups Will Still Thrive if This Passes" 

# "No Traffic Blocking/Throttling Will Happen if This Passes (Unless Publicly Disclosed)"
# The Great Netflix Slowdown of 2014

# Current Regulations Hurt Broadband Investment

# You Won’t Be Charged a Premium to Access Any Part of the Public Internet if This Passes

# Current Regulations Hurt Competition Between ISPs, Deter Small ISP Startups

# Portugal ISPs Zero-Rating

# FCC was actively investigating Zero-Rating practices until Ajit Pai’s FCC stopped it back in February

# Current Regulations Prevent the FTC From Protecting Americans’ Broadband Privacy

# Investment Claims Flawed 

# We Should Have All Had $20 Fiber for 40Mbps by 2005 -- The $400 billion rip-off 

# Verizon v FCC, US Court of Appeals, 2013-2014

# The “Restoring Internet Freedom” NOPR Public Comments Don’t Count (Plus It Was Shady, Look At All These Shady Pro Title II Comments)

# 98.5% of unique comments support Net Neutrality 

It’s important to cover feduciary responsibility to investors because it’s the M.O., the motive and kind of the cause of the problem.

Since the enlightenment, coercion has been the method of choice for dealing with global issues. It’s economic pressure (ie. embargoes, sanctions etc.) as opposed to just killing a significant percent of a population; which was the Dark Age method.

This method is also applied domestically with business models like the corporate model. It involves a growth imperative; which means that there are dire financial straights that exist if the business lacks growth. This promotes growth in the economies of nation states; in the growth of companies and the markets that they represent. This is achieved by stockholders getting a return on their investment; by their investment becoming more valuable, as the company grows. When the company is no longer growing, stock prices plateau and it’s in the interest of investors to sell the stock; which results in the company losing that as funding.

Now consider this as a motive for the major ISPs. What regulation could solve this problem?

Here’s the Smithian (ie. the wrong) interpretation: The government is coercing rapid, perpetual growth in systems that can’t possibly sustain it and punishing them with regulation for not being supernatural; therefor big bad government is at fault and should just die in a fire.

Here’s the reality. That which is normative is amended by that which is novel; resulting in systems being driven into extinction, in much the same way as technologies become obsolete.

Take this with a pinch of salt; but it looks like this gets much worse before it gets better.

1 Like

Thanks ! :heart_eyes:

What is Tom Wheeler doing these days? Is he still part of the FCC?
If not, wouldn’t it be interesting to talk to him about what is happening now?

Not sure what he’s doing right now if anything, but he’s been critical of Ajit Pai and noted how the big ISP’s have dropped the promises they were making to the FCC during the previous administration, seeing as they aren’t in any risk of losing anything anymore.


Just made this in a couple minutes. Works almost too well…



I think that you already lost. Some of you had it coming though.

The wealthiest country in the world is about to have the worst internet. Soon you will be competing with African states.


It should be noted that Nick Gillespie only half-argues the point but Tom fails to bring up the lack of competition in the marketplace. If your other wallet-vote option is a quarter the speed for the same price it’s not really competition (that’s the issue where I live).

Long time listener, first time “caller”

What is your opinion on a mesh network topology using multiple point to point open air lasers? There has already been successful tests using modified commercially available lasers (lab conditions, http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=eesp) and this could get around the local ISP competition problem. Every home controlling its own access to the broader network seems like the best way to get “3 roads to your home” as you said in this video.

In an ideal setup, you could have multiple connections to houses all around you. This way if say a truck blocks your connection to the most ideal internet path, your transceiver would redirect traffic down another peer.

Distributing the cost of the backbone ISP connection and how to secure such a network from man-in-the-middle attacks are some examples of issues that would need to be figured out.

1 Like

This will be better than 4g and 5g connections. Interestingly I think this is one of the best examples of something that may be impossible under title Ii… experimental tech and small ISP tech to get around onerous pole access requirements (which don’t change for title I or ii) is really hard to adhere to title Ii specs of “access for everybody”

Of course the same argument was made about telephone line access in rural areas. In many ways telephones transformed rural life though.

The money has been collected for fiber everywhere. Let me get my pound of flesh and get that first; then let’s talk rolling back title Ii. Incentive s lead to progress?

Currently there is an exemption in title Ii for isps with less than250k subscribers and several cases of the FCC examining complaints from customers of those isps and saying sorry about your luck. I do think the situation is a bit different with , say, Comcast since they have been granted a monopoly on large scale to properly wire an area… Plus all those tax rebates going back to the 1990s… Ha

Man in the middle is pretty much solved if you trust your ISP. And interestingly too , this is basically advocating for separation of network and services. Which was what 96 was all about.

Paging Al gore. Mr gore you are needed for a cleanup on aisle 3…


So as you know I am not one to be a sycophant.

But, this episode was really good. You and Paul jive really well and the subject matter was broken out an dissected in an easy to understand way.

I regret not taking more of a contrarian position, though, thanks. Perhaps something along the lines of a modest proposal would have worked better for illustrating the absurdity of some of it. Is what I mean.

Small isps do face some burdens and some of the ajit pai talking points are things that do need to be addressed. But it seems to me that he’s not really clear how title I and his talking points are related.

It’s almost like the wookies from endor defense. Just confuse everyone and some people will rally against big government… Idk it’s tough.


Wonder if easement and right of way laws were changed so that it is easier for competitors to run their own fiber would that facilitate the death of the old ISPs. Let them go full greed while the smaller guys take over.

In Texas we have Grande which has been rolling out gigabit. They have had a fair amount of issues with right of ways same with Google.

Receiving the goods promised in 96 would be amazing, and would be much better in the long run than the mesh network idea by far (primarily in the latency realm). But, once we have that “pound of flesh”, would we still have the incentive to roll back title ii?

One of my main concerns with where title ii leads over a 5 to 15 year time frame is with the government eventually wanting to help “protect” us in the same way Great Britain has. The ability to regulate the flow of “lawful content” scattered through out the declaratory ruling (https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf, notably page 47 paragraph 111) is only possible with the creation of some sort of “great firewall”. Do you think that I am being to “tin foil” with this concern?

The peer to peer mesh network would allow as many “roads” to your house as their are colors in the rainbow from multiple sources (more specifically laser colors that can be transmitted at the same time). In an ideal world where everyone would use a setup like this, you could have multiple individuals connected to various backbone providers creating a situation where it is impossible to add any monitoring/blocking system to the internet. Although, I will say that upgrading such a network would be a huge thorn in everyone’s side. If only a few individuals buy faster equipment, then there is no improvement, thus no point in buying better equipment.