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…
FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
221–230 of 674 posts
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#222Yes, but what the FCC declines to regulate the FTC might decide to regulate. Indeed, it sometimes has appeared that this division, reallocation, reassignment, of regulation has been a goal of the administration. That is, FTC type stuff belongs in the FTC, not the FCC. Maybe that will happen in this case.
I absolutely keep advocating for this, but that headline doesn't get as many clicks as "Trump is destroying the internet" unfortunately. The FTC can regulate all areas business, the FCC can only regulate communication. If people stop turning this into a red vs blue issue we could actually get somewhere.
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does your ISP have the ability to censor the internet for you? Do you watch Netflix? If you don't, that's ok, because most consumers do use it or a competing service. Internet Companies absolutely did try to charge Netflix extra, and in some cases throttled them. This was well documented. I don't know if you're a corporate shill or just genuinely lack the ability to comprehend how bad this is. Spectrum, Verizon and t…
It cuts both ways. What's to stop Google, Amazon, Netflix and Facebook from blocking all traffic from AT&T entirely? How long would Comcast or AT&T survive without access to the top 50 sites?
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#224Maybe I'm lone dissenter, but I don't understand the push back on this. People who read hacker news should be among the elite technologist, do we really all believe that every packet should be treated the same? Should an E911 call or tele-surgery packets really be treated the same as Netflix? Net neutrality forces the ISP to do that and that seems like madness to me.
No, they shouldn't all be treated equally. But the packet's source or destination should also not matter. NN fully supports traffic QOS by packet purpose (i.e. VOIP over gaming over web over bittorrent), just not by origin or destination. And it's origin/destination that ISPs demonstrably want to prioritize by.
Why not? It costs my ISP more to deliver certain packets than others. Sending a packet from San Francisco to San Jose is far cheaper than sending one from San Francisco to Sydney. Internet traffic costs are not the same across the world. Transit pricing in Australia is probably the most expensive in the world - it's roughly 20x higher than in the US. Why should ISPs be forced to pretend all traffic costs the same, when in reality it doesn't?
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#225Yes, but what the FCC declines to regulate the FTC might decide to regulate. Indeed, it sometimes has appeared that this division, reallocation, reassignment, of regulation has been a goal of the administration. That is, FTC type stuff belongs in the FTC, not the FCC. Maybe that will happen in this case.
> The staff comment noted that the FCC’s proceeding also would restore the FTC’s antitrust enforcement authority related to broadband providers. The FTC has worked to prevent unfair methods of competition since its inception more than a century ago, and the agency’s activities in Internet-related markets demonstrate its ability to preserve competition and promote innovation for the benefit of consumers.[2]
FTC Commissioner McSweeny, in a comment opposing that endorsed by the chairman, points out that the FTC may lack the authority to enforce net neutrality at all:
>...ISPs are free to change their terms of service regarding nondiscrimination on their networks without violating the FTC Act’s ban on deception so long as they provide clear notice of changes. If these disclosures are truthful, there is no deception for the FTC to police. [3]
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/advocacy_document... [2] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/07/ftc-s... [3] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#226Earlier 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…
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#227Tweet in article: >On December 14, the FCC will vote on Chairman Pai's plan to repeal President Obama's heavy-handed Internet regulations and restore Internet freedom. I love how these laws are veiled with patriotic sentiments, e.g. "Internet Freedom". Just like the "Patriot Act", it is reasonable to assume anything with these sort of labels will likely be an encroachment on your freedoms. Also >"The job of the FCC i…
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#228Except we’re already using toll roads. Instead of having free-ish municipal wifi, we’re already paying upwards of $100 per month to one of the cable/DSL duopolies in each city.
The question we should be asking ourselves is, does it have to be this way? What are the alternatives? I see two possible futures:
1) Work towards keeping the internet free and open through civil discourse, working at city, state and national levels to keep our elected officials honest in how they represent our interests.
2) Roll out the darknet - use onion routing, mesh nets, blockchains and other p2p technologies to effectively circumvent the internet, under the assumption that it’s been compromised.
There is a third option, which I think is the least likely but is all anyone seems to talk about. That’s the status quo option - the loss of net neutrality leading to a doubling or tripling of prices every decade or so, poorer a la carte service like with cable TV, maintaining the illusion of second class netizens as only consumers, and so on. But I think it’s not going to happen because technology doesn’t stand still. Look at what smartphones do today compared to even a decade ago. Technology will always.. find a way as they say.
So I don’t know about you, but I am deeply concerned that the loss of net neutrality will lead to option 2. I don’t think that corporations have the foresight to know the lengths that technology will go to to give people what they want. And I think we in the tech community only barely graze the surface of how far the intelligence community will go to track everyone as more and more people go dark. So what we are really talking about here is dystopia.
Maybe we need a new phrase for net neutrality. Net freedom? Net survival? I don’t know.
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#229Question for HN... As a non-american, what can I do to help you? I'm from the UK, and I'm fairly worried that if this happens in the US, we'll be next. I obviously don't have a US representative to call. Is there anything I can do to support the net neutrality fight? (Will donate to EFF if I can think of nothing better)
I'm not sure how things work in the UK, but if you guys have publicly-owned/municipal internet infrastructure, then I wouldn't worry about Net Neutrality.
If your infrastructure is owned by a few big companies like in the US, then my recommendation would be to start fighting for public control.
As far as helping people in the US...Net Neutrality is a loaded term now. We need to stop convincing people why Net Neutrality is a good idea and start convincing them why municipal broadband is a good idea. Maybe approach it from that angle.
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
you won't see it. they will force netflix to pay them more. And the charge will be passed on to all subscribers.
That's fine. Then I can decide if I want to pay that price for Netflix or not. I also have Amazon Prime video, and Youtube, and etc. so I have several competing choices.