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

301–310 of 674 posts

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

#301

Post by vorpalhex »

tzs wrote: post #185
vorpalhex wrote: post #53

Earlier 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…

Netflix is a special case, because it was generating some unbelievable fraction of the total internet traffic in the US for a few hours each evening. The internet was not designed for such large amounts of traffic in such a short time all coming from one source. Almost all cases of Netflix throttling or blocking turned out to be due to legitimate traffic management of overloaded links. I believe most of the cases whe…

That is perhaps the single greatest amount of bullshit in one paragraph that I have ever read in my entire life.

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

#302

Post by zeep »

rubicon33 wrote: post #166
fokinsean wrote: post #18

Tweet 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…

> "If you like your cable company" I've never once, in my entire life, heard anyone say they like Comcast.

There's many things I don't like about comcast (like customer service and that you have to call them back every year to avoid huge price hikes), but the internet service itself is very reliable (at least for me).

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

#303

Post by hamstercat »

dzdt wrote: post #80
ams6110 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are dropping cable due to the heavy-handed control and lack of choice. Why would ISPs want emulate that failing model? If Comcast is going to try to charge me more to be able to access Netflix, I'm gone.

How about if Comcast charges Netflix more to be able to access you? [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/12/comcastlevel3/

It's pretty much the opposite you have to be afraid of. Netflix is a big player and can force anyone to play ball with them. The problem is that anyone not named Netflix will have a much bigger hurdle to reach you.

Imagine you're a startup trying to compete with Netflix, and on top of having to create your business and media content, your customers have to pay their ISP a fee to access your website (or have better bandwidth, or have it not counted in your allocated data plan). No one would be able to compete with them. Now replace Netflix with any ... and yeah you get the idea.

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

#304

Post by mediocrejoker »

Delmania wrote: post #273
mediocrejoker wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What is the actual reason they shouldn't? In many areas of the United States, there is only one ISP available. Part of this is due to the high cost of entry, but the ISPs also have a past filled with rather shady activity. Verizon was given federal money to expand their network, did a fraction of the work, and then used their influence to pocket the rest. Comcast will throw lawsuits at new ISPs in order to bankrupt…

I think maybe this (barriers to entry) is the crux of the issue. Can you help me find more info on verizon and comcast doing these things?

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

#305

Post by snoman »

glenneroo wrote: post #132
dzdt wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about if Comcast charges Netflix more to be able to access you? [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/12/comcastlevel3/

Isn't it the same though? Netflix (and other sites) will be more or less forced to pass those charges on to the consumers.

Yes, which is immediately a problem when Netflix is competing with the cable company or one of its subsidiaries (which is the case) that don't have to pay those costs (or as much).

It allows the cable company to effectively tax the competition.

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

#306

Post by falcolas »

Pilfer wrote: post #224
falcolas wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>But the packet's source or destination should also not matter 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…

The ISP isn't directly paying that transit price. Level3 or other Tier 1 network providers are. And they set their prices according to their costs (and based on their own competition). Their prices are passed on to the ISPs, who pass it on to their customers.

So, yeah, that transit cost is already accounted for in your monthly internet bill.

Also, it's not productive to try and pretend that the prices levied by ISPs have anything to do with their costs; like all capitalism-born companies their prices are based on what the market will bear. Municipal broadband providers have proven that cost is nothing but a red herring used to justify prices and a lack of innovation.

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

#307

Post by guiambros »

nathan_long wrote: post #259
dzdt wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about if Comcast charges Netflix more to be able to access you? [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/12/comcastlevel3/

The argument that Netflix needs to pay Comcast is absurd. Why are people buying high-bandwidth plans from ISPs? Because they want to use services like Netflix . Netflix is not costing ISPs money, it's giving them something to sell . Imagine that taxi drivers want to charge the airport for overwhelming them with passengers and you'll see the absurdity.

> The argument that Netflix needs to pay Comcast is absurd.

Absurd for you, not for the carriers. And, unfortunately, they are the ones dealing the cards now.

Outrageous, for sure, but according to Chairman Pai's plan, carriers will be able to charge both consumers and content providers.

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

#308

Post by acetheface »

nickysielicki wrote: post #280
acetheface wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a consumer Im paying Comcast for quality access to all of the internet. Its their job to deliver on that. If they allow their peering points with T1 providers to clog up, they are not delivering on the service I purchased. Also, Comcast isn't a transit provider. They're an eyeball network and should expect heavy inbound traffic levels. Also look here: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/822 Their locations are all in th…

> If they allow their peering points with T1 providers to clog up, they are not delivering on the service I purchased. IIRC, the proposed net neutrality regulations would not change this scenario at all. The issue is the absolute leverage that would need to be granted in these agreements for this to be true. In this hypothetically net neutral universe, what should happen when those peering points clog up? Comcast abs…

The problem with a hands off approach is the lack of competition. I cant jump to another provider when the quality of my internet service does not live up to my expectations.

Since most ISPs have an effective monopoly there are no economic pressures for them to deliver quality service. So we need government to step in and treat them like the utilities they are.

Also, pretty sure Google doesnt pay for transit. They have a giant network footprint and push a ton of the internet's traffic. They are likely to be settlement free with everyone.

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

#309

Post by jogjayr »

bcoates wrote: post #74
fokinsean wrote: post #18

Tweet 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…

Where I live, I like spectrum-formerly-timewarner-formerly-roadrunner cable Internet just fine. There are a lot of alternatives to using it for home Internet around here, and I'm pretty sure the two are related. If you want better internet access, instead of begging the FCC for scraps get on repealing legislated monopoly rights for kinds of wires and/or unbundling last mile from ISP. Then ask yourself why internet re…

Why can't we have both?

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

#310

Post by takeda »

bcoates wrote: post #74
fokinsean wrote: post #18

Tweet 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…

Where I live, I like spectrum-formerly-timewarner-formerly-roadrunner cable Internet just fine. There are a lot of alternatives to using it for home Internet around here, and I'm pretty sure the two are related. If you want better internet access, instead of begging the FCC for scraps get on repealing legislated monopoly rights for kinds of wires and/or unbundling last mile from ISP. Then ask yourself why internet re…

I agree with most what you're saying, but I don't think NN necessarily goes against it.

While competition is by all means good, I also DON'T WANT ISP controlling what I can access and how. I want ISP simply just provide the service, and Title II does just that.

Post reply on HN