Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 206 posts

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#161

Post by intended »

splintercell wrote: post #37
outsidetheparty wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eliminating net neutrality incentivizes ISPs to build auxiliary services that they can artificially support by throttling the bandwidth of competing products. It incentivizes them to seek profit by favoring some net traffic over other net traffic. It does not in any way incentivize them to build larger or better networks. It does not incentivize them to invest in their infrastructure. All it does is let them make mor…

Business Model 1: Build your own services and throttle everyone else's services unless they pay a premium (in which case your own services would be cheaper, but the profit they get from their own services must be higher than the profit they get from NOT selling the bandwidth their premium service uses, to third parties). Let's put it this way, if a hotel builds a Jacuzzi, you're argument is that the hotel owner will…

American Telecom companies have demonstrated that they will follow model 2.

Its very surprising that people argue about these businesses in the hypothetical.

America has only a few Telecom players. They will remain a few telecom players because fundamentally telecom has deep barriers to entry.

And these players have a long history of hugely anti consumer moves, laziness, deceit, cabal like behavior.

I really do not understand this, and hope someone can shed light on it.

Why do people talk about these firms, and trust them to act as model businesses.

1) Are many americans unaware of the history of malifide actions by telecom firms? (colluding to drive down prices during auctions, not building the network they were given tax breaks too, already existent rent seeking behavior and attitudes)

2) Is there some other principle that they believe these firms will follow, that overrides the obvious business incentive to cheat?

I don't get it.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#162

Post by theprop »

I suggested a decade ago that Net Neutrality rules could be foregone, but one important caveat is needed, that no charges to consumers or producers be levied in respect to violating net neutrality i.e. a producer can't pay to have their packets move faster/slower. That's the only way to prevent abuses which are essentially extortion.

Without that rule, the ISPs will invest money into new networks...but it will have negative consumer value and a lot of rent-seeking or pure extortion value for the ISPs.

Packet-based systems are so efficient that some sort of QoS packet routing makes no sense technically in respect to the overhead of brand new networking schemes. Unbiased packet routing is doing just great streaming HD videos on Netflix to 100 million people worldwide, and will continue to do great. The more fundamental problem is that the bottlenecks are at the last mile and there is NO WAY that Verizon is going to lay two cables to your home, one fast lane for important traffic, and another slow lane!! Without last mile investment, there can not be any meaningful technical gains from violating net neutrality.

ISPs want to get rid of net neutrality in order to extort money from Google, Facebook, Netflix and others. Netflix is already paying an extortion fee to Verizon who threatened them with slower speeds if they didn't pay up.

The government's job is to insure that markets are fair and that effective monopolies don't abuse their power, through simple regulations. ISPs and Telco.s have regularly demonstrated for over a hundred years that they HAVE TO BE REGULATED...we would not have an internet or an inter-operable phone network if governments all over the world did force these companies to talk to other networks! The breakup of AT&T just over two decades ago (seems much longer!) was tremendous in spurring on lower costs and competitors in telecommunications.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#163

Post by intended »

shmerl wrote: post #151
outsidetheparty wrote: post #8

> Pai argued that rolling back the rules will encourage ISPs to spend more on their broadband networks How? How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? It's just so frustrating that these guys no longer even bother to pretend that their arguments make any logical sense at all. "We'll protect user privacy by eliminating these rules that pr…

Pai is a shill. No need to look for common sense in this farce. His whole point is to let monopolists run amok.

I had my doubts, that perhaps he had some broader plan which would magically enforce NN without having to over reach.

But then his article came out, and it was just filled with FUD and misinformation.

I doubt that he is a dull person, and that he reached the FCC by projecting an air of deep incompetence.

It follows that he knows full well that what he says is incorrect, and says it because he knows it will appeal to his core target. I assume this is his run up for either political position, or a cushy job in telecom.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#164

Post by fattire »

sxates wrote: post #51

I'm paying 30% more each month to use a local ISP that's dedicated to Net Neutrality and online privacy (sonic.net) instead of Comcast/xfinity, because Comcast, along with the other large telecom companies, are actively undermining competitive markets, consumer freedom, and in a sense, our democracy. An extra $20-30/month is a small price to pay to keep what little competition they have alive. I'd encourage everyone…

If I had that choice, I would do the same.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#165

Post by cmdrfred »

awalton wrote: post #137
cmdrfred wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Then Comcast, AT&T, Google or anyone else frankly begins offering "True unlimited full access internet" and eats Verizon's breakfast, lunch and dinner. You seem to be intentionally forgetting that these ISPs have segregated themselves such that they do not have to compete with one another. In most of the US, you get one choice of fast internet (Verizon or Comcast or Time Warner) and one choice of slow internet (wha…

I have Verizon(fiber), Comcast(coax) and AT&T(copper) where I live. Not to mention satellite and 4G internet options.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#166

Post by bonzini »

ThePurpleKnight wrote: post #64
prklmn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not having adequate competition plays a major role in this. If the market was actually competitive, they would have to invest more to stay alive, regardless of the regulations. It's the lack of competition that's driving the industry.

And to be fair to Pai, he has consistently said his main goal is to reduce the regulatory burdens preventing people from getting in to the market.

One then asks where is the part of the bill that forces the incumbents to give their competitors free access to the last mile.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#167

Post by therpe1 »

intended wrote: post #161
splintercell wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business Model 1: Build your own services and throttle everyone else's services unless they pay a premium (in which case your own services would be cheaper, but the profit they get from their own services must be higher than the profit they get from NOT selling the bandwidth their premium service uses, to third parties). Let's put it this way, if a hotel builds a Jacuzzi, you're argument is that the hotel owner will…

American Telecom companies have demonstrated that they will follow model 2. Its very surprising that people argue about these businesses in the hypothetical. America has only a few Telecom players. They will remain a few telecom players because fundamentally telecom has deep barriers to entry. And these players have a long history of hugely anti consumer moves, laziness, deceit, cabal like behavior. I really do not u…

> Its very surprising that people argue about these businesses in the hypothetical.

I think this is standard operating procedure for conservatives. They provide extremely speculative theoretical arguments based on over-simplified and over-determined models to justify their policies. They don't ever point to real-world, historical data to demonstrate their thesis. When your committed to good ideology rather than good policy you have to be willing to make trade offs.

> And these players have a long history of hugely anti consumer moves, laziness, deceit, cabal like behavior

Yes, there is plenty of actual historical data pointing out the tendency of US telecoms to seek risk-free profits. The US probably has the least competitive telecom market in the world. This is common knowledge [1]. The idea that these extremely non-competitive firms can be given more power and they'll "innovate" is laughable.

[1] http://www.economist.com/node/17800141

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#168

Post by throwanem »

cmdrfred wrote: post #165
awalton wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then Comcast, AT&T, Google or anyone else frankly begins offering "True unlimited full access internet" and eats Verizon's breakfast, lunch and dinner. You seem to be intentionally forgetting that these ISPs have segregated themselves such that they do not have to compete with one another. In most of the US, you get one choice of fast internet (Verizon or Comcast or Time Warner) and one choice of slow internet (wha…

I have Verizon(fiber), Comcast(coax) and AT&T(copper) where I live. Not to mention satellite and 4G internet options.

Congratulations! You're an outlier.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#169

Post by masklinn »

Veratyr wrote: post #135
sinak wrote: post #5

Here is the "fact sheet" that Ajit Pai distributed at the event at the Newseum today: https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/85728851922775655... Also of note, YC, TechStars and Engine Advocacy released their "Startups for Net Neutrality" letter to Pai this morning: http://www.engine.is/startups-for-net-neutrality

It's factually incorrect though. > Two years ago, the FCC suddenly changed course – even though there was no problem that the agency needed to solve. There was a problem. The FCC enacted the Open Internet Order establishing Net Neutrality in 2010, Verizon sued the FCC in 2014 and the court said the FCC could only enact the order if Verizon was a Title II common carrier. The FCC reclassified so that they could enforce…

Also doesn't seem to be on the fact sheet but Pai asserted that the interwebs worked just fine under Clinton and Bush without ISPs being Title II common carriers… except DSL ISPs were moved to Title I at the start of GWB II...

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#170

Post by JohnTHaller »

outsidetheparty wrote: post #8

> Pai argued that rolling back the rules will encourage ISPs to spend more on their broadband networks How? How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? It's just so frustrating that these guys no longer even bother to pretend that their arguments make any logical sense at all. "We'll protect user privacy by eliminating these rules that pr…

It doesn't. But they don't particularly care. I live in NYC and have access to a single proper broadband provider. And they'll absolutely sell everything they can about me given the chance because they know I have no alternative but to use them.
Post reply on HN