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

FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 674 posts

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#201

Post by mediocrejoker »

imglorp wrote: post #101
ChicagoDave wrote: post #69

It's unlikely popular and profitable services will be hindered by the lack of net neutrality. But any new services that threaten existing ones will be hard-pressed to compete. Imagine I start a new streaming service. In order for my service to reach people, ISP's will charge me a higher price than Netflix, probably a _significantly_ higher rate. This will make it extremely difficult for my new service to reach enough…

> It's unlikely popular and profitable services will be hindered by the lack of net neutrality. Huh? Did you forget already that both Verizon and Comcast throttled services like Netflix? They both argued they should get a cut if they were going to carry the traffic to their customers. Now they're getting exactly what they wanted. 1. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/veriz... 2. https://consumeris…

What is the actual reason they shouldn't?

This is a highly politicized topic but it's hard to find rational discussion.

If I built a network I would expect to be able to charge whatever I wanted to whomever I wanted in exchange for the use of my network.

Is the answer that taxpayers helped fund the network so now feel they deserve not to pay twice? How much of the current internet infrastructure is paid for by taxpayers vs private corporations?

Any good sources you'd suggest reading on the pros and cons of each side of the argument?

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#202

Post by vast_majority »

rhino369 wrote: post #163
jjoonathan wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To where? Or are you one of those lucky few who have a choice of ISP?

The vast majority have some choice. The average household can choose between their telecom or their cable company. In some areas one or both of those companies don't provide broadband, but in the bulk of locations they do. And while 4g service isn't a true replacement, it provides enough competition to prevent the AOL-ization of the internet. At a certain point, people would choose more expensive wireless over absurd…

"The vast majority have some choice"

I challenge this assertion -> please document it.

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#203

Post by bluetidepro »

Brotkrumen wrote: post #191
bluetidepro wrote: post #159

What I don't fully understand is why isn't larger tech companies like Facebook, Netflix, Google, Twitter, Amazon, etc. making a big fuss about this on their sites to warn their users and help fight against it? Are they not as worried about this? Does it actual benefit them in some ways cause they can box out smaller competition since they can afford to pay ISP's or something? For example, if Facebook saw this as a re…

Iirc the netflix CEO himself said in the beginning of this that net neutrality is good for small to medium upstarts and bad for incumbents. Netflix now is an incumbent with enough bargaining power to get a good price for that access and fastlane. Netflix future competitor won't have that bargaining power and will be forced to offer their product more expensively. Same with all the big e-businesses

So are you implying that the tech giants used in all the examples of why we should be saving this are the ones that don't actually even care, because this would help them stay giants and hurt new competition from rising to compete with them? ...If that's the case, I feel like the media should change their prospective in promoting awareness to fight for the companies that this is ACTUALLY going to effect more so then the ones it won't (the tech giants most have used in their examples).

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#205

Post by orthecreedence »

colemannugent wrote: post #136

Is it time to go full decentralized peer-to-peer wireless mesh yet? I know it would be slow, but that's par for the course in most of the US anyway. Routing would be painful, but something like IPFS would encourage peers to cache content in order to ensure faster access to the content they want. It could be done if only the barrier to entry for normal folks was lower. I'm thinking a dedicated piece of hardware in a f…

There's a step in between Comcast's stranglehold and full mesh nets: municipal broadband/fiber.

The more towns get municipal fiber, the more Comcast's grip loosens, until they're forced to compete at a local level with local ISPs run by people you know and trust who support Net Neutrality.

If a local ISP doesn't support Net Neutrality, drop their ass and use one of the 20 other ISPs that rent the infrastructure from the city.

This is the real shift we need. Net Neutrality regulation will be ping-ponging in various parts of the government for the rest of time...which is a symptom of a much larger problem: the public currently doesn't own the infrastructure, and we need to.

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#206

Post by so33 »

dinoleif wrote: post #124
charonn0 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Switch to another internet provider. That's not an option for most Americans, and part of the reason why net neutrality is necessary.

This is plainly false. Most households have multiple internet providers.

In Ontario, there are three major internet providers: Rogers, Bell, and Telus. For the longest time, their plans (all of them) had bandwidth caps, something that would be unheard of in the United States. They used to be extremely ungenerous, about 100 GB a month or worse. (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/04/how-internet-use...)

The other internet providers, Bell and Telus, had an opportunity to distinguish themselves here.

But they didn’t. They had bandwidth caps too. There was a smaller ISP (TekSavvy) which offered 300GB bandwidth caps (still ridiculous by US standards), which they could offer as a result of a law requiring Canadian ISPs to resell infrastructure to smaller providers (meaning TekSavvy has access to all of Rogers’ customer base). Around 2015, Rogers started introducing plans with higher bandwidth caps, and bandwidth restrictions have relaxed (but they still exist).

It took pretty much a decade for innovation-stifling bandwidth restrictions to stop being a thing in Ontario, and arguably only because of a law (i.e. government interference) letting smaller ISPs use big ISP infrastructure.

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#207

Post by Brotkrumen »

ChicagoDave wrote: post #69

It's unlikely popular and profitable services will be hindered by the lack of net neutrality. But any new services that threaten existing ones will be hard-pressed to compete. Imagine I start a new streaming service. In order for my service to reach people, ISP's will charge me a higher price than Netflix, probably a _significantly_ higher rate. This will make it extremely difficult for my new service to reach enough…

We had a glimpse of the future with Telekom. They looked at startups and offered them faster cheaper access in return for equity.

Now imagine that model with the threat of throttling that startup if they dont comply.

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#208

Post by shmerl »

bluetwo wrote: post #175
ghewgill wrote: post #89

For those who don't understand why net neutrality is important, it is worthwhile to read about the history of communications (telephone, radio, TV). There is an excellent book by Tim Wu called The Master Switch [0] which investigates the history of communications (with an American focus), describes how each industry start out open to all (farmers using fences for telephone, independent radio broadcasters), and each o…

And our mistake here is not finding a way to explain it that doesn't require reading a book.

John Oliver found a good way to explain it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak

The problem is that ISP shills that make these decisions don't care about public opposition. They aren't elected officials.

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#209

Post by Fnoord »

forapurpose wrote: post #79
yobrien wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My apartment complex has a contract with AT&T. I either have ATT or I don't have anyone. I can't be "gone". I just have to suck it up and pay unless I want to go to the library for basic internet then.

People also have the option of the cellular network via their phones, though that's not a true substitute for a wired ISP.

DSL (with VDSL pretty much FTTC), cable (also pretty much FTTC), LTE (if 50 ms latency and relatively low bandwidth cap is OK), and FTTH (if you're lucky and live in such an area) are the 4 options. It is going to be different everywhere in the USA (and world) but FTTH isn't available everywhere, and its not uncommon that either DSL or cable is unreliable.

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#210

Post by riantogo »

It seems that most folks are objecting on the lines of, “imagine you being charged more to access Netflix/FB/Steam”. But that is not how it is going to play out.

ISPs will start charging content providers to be on the fast lane. Now if you are a big co this both good and bad. Bad because you have an additional fee to reach your users. Good because it is a small fee to block out the small guys still in garages who could completely take you out.

This is not about increase in monthly internet bill. It is about kissing goodbye to the kind of innovations we have seen with neutral internet.

Post reply on HN