FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:24 PM UTC

riantogo wrote: post #210

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 cou…

> 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.

But also bad because the ISPs are also your competitors, and not only will you need to pass the additional costs on to your customers (making your service less competitive), but they'll also.b able to use the money to subsidize their competing service.

It does Google no good if startups that might compete against YouTube have a harder time, but Google is forced to subsidize competing ISP-operated streaming video services that already exist.

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

#232

Post by shanusmagnus » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:24 PM UTC

mediocrejoker wrote: post #201

imglorp wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 taxpay…

1) Do you think it would be okay for a hardware store to price a shovel differently depending on what the customer wanted to dig?

2) The telcos never seem to reflect on the fact that the only reason people want broadband at all is because there are services that they want to access. So just by existing they're already getting their cut. It would be just as reasonable for Amazon and Netflix to ask Comcast for a cut of their revenue, since they're providing these attractive services that Comcast isn't paying a dime to provide.

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

#233

Post by opportune » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:24 PM UTC

mediocrejoker wrote: post #201

imglorp wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 taxpay…

These ISP companies use legal shenanigans, coupled with the unavoidably large startup costs of creating a new/competing ISP, to effectively run regional monopolies. Google kind of gave up their master plan for Fiber after they were litigated in multiple jurisdictions essentially over bullshit that they were legally within their right to do, such as use shared lines - and that was Google, which had a ton of cash to throw at the problem.

These monopolies aren't so bad by themselves; we have similar monopolies with power and water. But those are regulated so that their monopolies can't be blatantly abused. ISPs are trying to roll back regulations that, in the minds of pro-NN people, will allow them to abuse consumers using their monopolies.

The problem with what these network providers are doing is that they own both the lines and the content. For example, if your ISP is a shareholder in Hulu, they're going to charge way more for Netflix to stream than Hulu, so they can essentially use this new ruling in an anti-competitive manner.

I'm not sure what most of the anti-net neutrality side's supporting arguments are aside from the fact that the regulations are unfairly limiting ISP's abilities to make money. They will mention that these regulations are affecting the free market, but in my opinion other existing regulations are much worse about limiting the effects of the free market, except those would make it easier for ISPs to be competed against, not harder.

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

#234

Post by tehwebguy » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:24 PM UTC

raarts wrote: post #150

ams6110 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But your ISP owns you. They will charge YouTube and Amazon as well. You'll end up paying $120/Mo for your connection again.

And new competition will become less possible as ISPs barrier to entry becomes enournous.

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

#235

Post by jetpks » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

api wrote: post #117

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #102

I feel like the making the examples about Netflix/Google misses the point. This is way more dangerous than that - without Net Neutrality rules there's nothing to legally stop an ISP from "prioritizing" and "deprioritizing" any number of political and social sites. Digital fundraising for politicians is a very real and active thing. Would they be upset with if their side was suddenly hit with a 30s / page load penalty…

A good way to get the right wingers might be to ask them what happens when their ISP blocks "hate speech" (as they or someone else defines it) or political speech that falls far outside well established political views. This is actually pretty likely to happen. Of course I suppose it'll be kind of funny to see God Emperor Trump usher in policies that make things like Gab and Voat unreachable. Top Kek!

Or charging extra, per-page-view if the ISP felt like it, to visit FoxNews.com or NPR.org since they're not the ISP's preferred news networks.

THAT is the reality we're about to enter with this FCC change. Who gives a shit about Netflix being slower? Using that example to fight for Net Neutrality is a guaranteed way to lose.

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

#236

Post by sharemywin » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

stefantheard wrote: post #127

ams6110 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would be more interesting if Netflix passed it on to subscribers specifically from the ISP that charges them. Then you can as a consumer make a better decision factoring in the increased price of goods with one ISP over another.

Don't kid yourself the cable companies will act like a cartel.

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

#237

Post by dawnerd » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

mediocrejoker wrote: post #201

imglorp wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 taxpay…

In theory that makes sense but if you build a network and actively fight to prevent any one else from also running lines, thats where we have a problem.

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

#238

Post by holtalanm » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

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…

I think that would be too slow for it to be doable.

Caching would only work for a subset of content, and anything large that is not cached would take exponentially longer to retrieve.

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

#239

Post by singlow » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

creaghpatr wrote: post #174

api wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good way to get the right wingers might be to ask them what happens when their ISP blocks "hate speech" (as they or someone else defines it) or political speech that falls far outside well established political views. This is actually pretty likely to happen. Of course I suppose it'll be kind of funny to see God Emperor Trump usher in policies that make things like Gab and Voat unreachable. Top Kek!

Or the ISPs will pressure companies like FB and Youtube and Twitter into changing their speech policies to unblock hate speech or face throttling. Those tech companies already 'throttle' users who do not meet their orwellian standards.

The Orwellian standards of not censoring? I am not a fan of hate speech - but I'm also not a fan of corporate oligarchs deciding how it is defined.

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

#240

Post by holtalanm » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

orthecreedence wrote: post #205

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…

this. 100% this.