211–220 of 452 posts
I tried commenting on the proceeding at the FCC site but I keep getting service unavailable errors. The FCC site itself is up but conveniently we the public cannot comment on the issue.
you can also submit via API: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/public-api-docs.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not American, so please correct me if I'm wrong but I have yet to see any proof of this whole 'sell your internet history' complaint that seems to be blatently copied by everyone without any research. The way I understand it is that ISPs can sell anonymized data from groups of users. Like: people who visit news.ycombinator.com generally also visit stackoverflow. I also don't know how an ISP would get your actual…
> I also don't know how an ISP would get your actual internet history if the website uses HTTPS. Your ISP can (and likely does) monitor your DNS queries, which (as far as I know) are not encrypted. Personally I think the net neutrality stuff is a tad overblown. I'd vote for maintaining it, but I've never been particularly convinced by the whole "surveillance state/beyond-orwellian/ISP censoring your speech" arguments…
Agreed. Though I would prefer that we do whatever we can to identify and implement mechanisms to increase competition. I want new ISP options, and several of them, rather than just marginally better behavior from the one or two ISPs I have in my neighborhood. I'd prefer regulation that increases competition (even if that hurts the incumbents) rather than regulation that assumes the incumbents are fixed and therefore just manages how they conduct their business. The prior is designed to create new ISP options, the latter tends to serve to decrease the incidence rate of new options.
I've always been a voracious Internet consumer. For all of its faults, I really enjoyed the regulatory framework of the Communications Act of 1996 that allowed competitive ISPs to lease physical wires.
Honest question, but is Net Neutrality the answer to these problems? A few weeks ago on HN, someone made an analogy to water: someone filling their swimming pool should pay more for water than someone showering or cooking with it. This seems to make sense to me, water is a scarce resource and it should be prioritized. Is the same true of the Internet? I absolutely agree that ISPs that are also in the entertainment bu…
There's nothing specifically immoral about selling safe bottled water. But as soon as you induce people to buy it, in this case by degrading the tap water, you're doing something wrong.
Much like water companies, many areas either have no choice in ISP or can only choose between the big three who have very similar policies. Choice is in effect an illusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> More likely, certain services would be charged tolls upstream Any service that competes with an ISP's service > others would be promoted with discounts. An ISP's or their partner's service. When you have at most 3 but usually only 2 choices for an ISP in a local market, how do you think this will benefit anyone ither than them? My only two choices are comcast and at&t DSL. I live in a dense, wealthy area where peop…
Both of your comments will require a bit more in-depth a response. I will do so later on today. Enjoying the discussion.
Comcast is also a huge content provider of crap I'd never watch: NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo, E!, CNBC World. I watch a couple of shows from USA (Mr Robot) and SyFy(The Expanse) that I prefer to purchase by the season. I don't want to live in a world where those stations are fast laned and NEtflix (which will pay), crunchyroll, curiosityTV, youtube (will pay), various documentary streaming sites etc are in the slow lane.
One possible resolution I can see where this has a happy ending is that it causes Google, my municipality, etc to enter the ISP market. Unlikely because of the legal costs.
More likely option, I'll get SpaceX internet and deal with the 25ms latency. I'm already running a VPN, degrading my service, so that I'm not just another data point for marketers and advertisers to manipulate.
Look forward to your response and that you give me some hope
Honest question, but is Net Neutrality the answer to these problems? A few weeks ago on HN, someone made an analogy to water: someone filling their swimming pool should pay more for water than someone showering or cooking with it. This seems to make sense to me, water is a scarce resource and it should be prioritized. Is the same true of the Internet? I absolutely agree that ISPs that are also in the entertainment bu…
I don't think so. Water is a resource that can be stored. Bandwidth is a perishable good. If it's not used, you can't store the excess for use later. Billing based on peak usage or peak available bandwidth maps properly to provider costs, but billing based on usage doesn't.
Why does anyonw want to give more power to Comcast or AT&T? Neither has hardly ever been described as innovative.. unless you count clueless members of Congress.
I'm not sure what you consider innovative, but my local comcast connection has grown by about 10x in bandwidth over the last 15 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't, but the ISP still know what pages you went to. If they want to determine your political leanings your browsing history is enough.
How would the ISP know what pages you went to over HTTPS? Only the domain name would be available, through SNI/DNS.
With a fee, this requirement could then be waived.
Dystopian but technically possible.
I wasn't impressed with this article; it reads like fear mongering. More importantly, I don't think the fix is regulation, I think it's better privacy tech + increased competition via elimination of local monopolies. Do we really want to depend on government to enforce privacy on the Internet?
Net neutrality has nothing to do with privacy, it's about treating everyone's traffic the same.