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

281–290 of 674 posts

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

#281

Post by dragonwriter »

username223 wrote: post #265
Fnoord wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really like your idea, but it has legal implications (accountability) because your neighbours would end up doing things on the internet on your account or vice versa. I would suggest to do this in combination with a VPN but 1) even with OpenVPN those are often insecure 2) they cost additional money 3) with these new FCC rules their bandwidth might get limited.

If your ISP cracks down, you can always go to the local Starbucks or library to torrent movies. And since the few people who share the WAP all know each other, they can talk things out.

Not if the library or Starbucks have an ISP with similarly restrictive policies.

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

#282

Post by creaghpatr »

singlow wrote: post #239
creaghpatr wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The question is which group of oligarchs would you allow this unchecked power? Personally, I'm not a fan of either, but I'd rather see competition in this area rather than government-sanctioned neutrality.

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

#283

Post by komali2 »

adrr wrote: post #41

Google, Facebook, Netflix and Amazon should just start charging ISPs a per user fee to similar to how cable channels work. If ISPs don't pay, they should display ISP's phone number and ask the customer to call their local ISP and demand access. Content is king even in you have a monopoly on distribution .

Netflix already went to battle with Comcast and lost. Both parties were saying one should pay the other, in the end Netflix paid Comcast.

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

#284

Post by ball_of_lint »

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 the US the internet has become a utility. You can possibly live without it in the same way that you could possibly live without running water, but to be a functional and normal member of society you need access to it. It is used for everything from communication to shopping. Giving cable companies control over what people can/cannot see on the internet or how much websites cost to view allows them to extort any one that uses the internet to conduct or attract business.

Furthermore, the internet has now become a public meeting place. Many people communicate with each other solely through the internet and voice their opinions there. Giving cable companies the ability to legally prevent two IPs from communicating is akin to preventing mail between them.

Basically, because of the ways that the internet has come to be used and the basic expectation of privacy that people have when it comes to similar things such as mail, many people would consider it wrong to remove any semblance of privacy or fairness from the internet, which is what repealing net neutrality does.

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

#285

Post by komali2 »

SimonPStevens wrote: post #122

Question 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)

Become famous and start shouting at people.

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

#286

Post by cat199 »

bluetidepro wrote: post #203
Brotkrumen wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 media owned by whom again?

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

#287

Post by cat199 »

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!

this isn't a right-v-left issue, it's a top-v-bottom issue.

the clipper chip was a clinton thing, the obama administration was for a long time on the fence, etc.

i will credit that the current administration is 'right', whatever that actually means these days..

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

#288

Post by SimbaOnSteroids »

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…

Your argument would be valid if it were possible for alternate internet providers to pop up. However there isn't anything comparable to cable right now that you could call an alternative.

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

#289

Post by m00g00 »

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!

Problem is the blocking of politically unpopular speech is already happening, just by the major gatekeepers of social media, Facebook, Google, Twitter etc. instead of ISP's. In fact many of the same people advocating for NN are also cheering on major tech companies censorship policies (while the tech companies still insist that they are Common Carriers and thus not liable for user posted content).

So why would right wingers or anyone else with politically unpopular opinions want to train their ire at ISP's who have no history of political censorship, when censorship is happening right now, under everyone's nose. Where are all the articles demanding Google et al become neutral carriers of information or lose their Common Carrier status? In fact, we are getting the exact opposite, with article after article posted here and elsewhere basically demanding that big tech companies censor Fake News, i.e. propaganda you don't agree with.

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

#290

Post by ams6110 »

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.

I won't, because it's not worth that to me. I pay nearly $100/mo now and the value is already borderline at that price. I guess others might feel it's worth more or that they have no choice.
Post reply on HN