Live data from Hacker News

The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

washingtonpost.com

121–130 of 206 posts

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#121

The sneakiest thing just happened to me on that Washington Post site. There was an overlay ad, no big deal, with an X to close it in the upper right of the screen. I moved my mouse up there to click the X and the site shifted slightly so what I actually clicked was "Subscribe"!

I see that on sites all the time. I assume it's just the layout shifting because the page retrieves stuff whose dimensions it doesn't know in advance. It used to happen with images all the time; now it happens with XHR.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#122
post #92
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly is the comment you're replying to "incendiary"?

The comment includes highly partisan and uncivil language: > spewing bullshit > the clownshow in office > D's get to clean up the mess Regardless of how right (or wrong) the commenter may be, this type of language does not invite or encourage the civil and productive discourse that is strongly valued on HN. There are ways to express such opinions in a civil way, though it requires more effort. Given the current polar…

Thank you for a clear example of the difference between vulgar and offensive.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're claiming "There is no way they will go for business model 2, they will go for business model 1". But you have no presented any reason why they would do that? There are two reasons they would do that. The first is price discrimination. Suppose Spotify makes $2/month worth of profit but uses $0.05/month in bandwidth. Now Verizon can charge them $2/month for that amount of bandwidth and take their entire margin…

What happens when Spotify emails its customers saying "sorry we can't provide service to Verizon customers anymore, they charge us too much" Some may stay and downgrade their service as they don't require as much bandwidth and some may leave Verizon entirely. It's not all roses for them. Then Comcast, AT&T, Google or anyone else frankly begins offering "True unlimited full access internet" and eats Verizon's breakfas…

Netflix tried something similar a few years ago and it turned into a huge mess.

https://www.theverge.com/2014/6/4/5778770/netflix-warning-me...

https://qz.com/688033/netflix-launched-this-handy-speed-test...

https://bgr.com/2014/06/11/netflix-video-streaming-speed-tes...

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#125
post #3

How, specifically, is this helpful to the consumer or to the internet in general?

It's not. Not to get too political but there are two groups: "the people" and "business". Watch every decision the current administration makes. It's helpful for "business" and hurts "the people". This is the opposite of what most people think it should be.

Honestly, is it the current administration or republicans in general? Have there been any proposals put forth by that party which directly address actual constituents' (people) needs? To me it seems like everything they want to do is wrapped up as "it's good for business, so it is good for you."

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're claiming "There is no way they will go for business model 2, they will go for business model 1". But you have no presented any reason why they would do that? There are two reasons they would do that. The first is price discrimination. Suppose Spotify makes $2/month worth of profit but uses $0.05/month in bandwidth. Now Verizon can charge them $2/month for that amount of bandwidth and take their entire margin…

What happens when Spotify emails its customers saying "sorry we can't provide service to Verizon customers anymore, they charge us too much" Some may stay and downgrade their service as they don't require as much bandwidth and some may leave Verizon entirely. It's not all roses for them. Then Comcast, AT&T, Google or anyone else frankly begins offering "True unlimited full access internet" and eats Verizon's breakfas…

> "True unlimited full access internet" and eats Verizon's breakfast, lunch and dinner.

I would agree with you only if everyone had a choice of that many providers, which is not the case! In my current neighborhood in Boston I have a whopping selection of either America's favorite company Comcast (with bandwidth caps and horrible outdated infrastructure and service) or Verizon DSL (max ~3Mbs down on a good day and only when it doesn't rain). In my previous neighborhood it was only Comcast as it was too far from Verizon's DSL switch. Neither one of those companies have any incentive to improve their networks. Zero. They have a comfortable duopoly and killing net neutrality will only reaffirm their horrible exploitative positions and allow them to start turning the internet into something reminiscent of cable TV, which is their ultimate goal: full control over content providers.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#127
post #98
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I disable javascript on my laptop and block ads on my iphone. I shouldn't have to chase around advert-closing buttons that's jinking like a high-performance fighter aircraft.

If you run Firefox on Android, you can use the NoScript extension there as well. Sadly, Firefox for iOS is just a wrapper around WebKit, so Firefox extensions do not work there.

Firefox Reader view has been my savior both on laptops and on my mobile phone. It doesn't work on every page, but where it does, it removes the styling and JavaScript and I get to concentrate on the content.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#128

The sneakiest thing just happened to me on that Washington Post site. There was an overlay ad, no big deal, with an X to close it in the upper right of the screen. I moved my mouse up there to click the X and the site shifted slightly so what I actually clicked was "Subscribe"!

In many sites, hitting the ESC key will dismiss those overlays.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#129
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly is the comment you're replying to "incendiary"?

I actually think the "D's" are equally bad, if not worse. But saying that potentially leads to an argument. That's why it's incendiary, because it leads directly to bashing, skipping civil debate. Plus, it's condecending to at least half of the people in the U.S. The parent commenter acts as though they know they're correct and every other person is wrong. The comment comes across very close minded, and not really in…

You can't join in the political discussion and wag your finger at those talking politics. I also don't think much of the both sides are equally bad dismissal of the current disaster that is American politics. Its a disappointing lack of analysis.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#130
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's lip service so the big players can have their regulatory burden reduced. High startup costs and anticompetitive practices are the most significant mechanisms preventing new market entrants.

The FCC just released an NPRM to speed up access to utility poles, which is pretty much the only regulatory hurdle Google Fiber ran into. One of the options being considered is allowing new attachers to do make ready work themselves, which is similar to the one touch make ready laws Google pushed for in places like Louisville (the current pole attachment process requires existing attachers to move their own lines ins…

Google is hardly a startup or a new entrant into the market. They had a huge operations revenue to cover the costs of deployment.

The fact that Google Fibre exists only reinforces the assessment that you must be this big to enter the ISP market in the USA.

Post reply on HN