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

#381

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #197

username223 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talk to your neighbors and offer to split the internet bill. This doesn't solve the long-term problem, but at least it hurts the local internet monopoly.

From what I gather in the brief comment, the apartment complex only allowed AT&T to install cabling to the building, so those apartment buildings are only serviced by AT&T. The apartment complex will not allow another ISP to dig up their property to install internet service for tenants, leading to an exclusive AT&T monopoly. I've had friends in similar apartment buildings. Calling other ISPs operating across the stre…

FCC instituted rules in 2008 abolishing the payola-style deals that stifle ISP competition in apartment buildings [0], but in the biggest surprise ever, the apartment owners and would-be-monopolist ISPs have been avoiding compliance by hiding the exclusivity part of their contracts. The apartment owner simply leaves open the prospect that another ISP could install access, but never actually allows them to do so. Or they make the now-legally-unenforceable exclusivity clauses of their contracts severable, but those enforcing the entire contract never actually know which of the clauses in it are invalid. So the clauses continue to be enforced in practice, by people who do not know they should be ignored.

If you can't get competing services in your apartment complex, get a lawyer and sue the owner.

[0] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280908A1.p...

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

#382

Post by skywhopper » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 7:42 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #375

jrs235 wrote: post #366

Wow. If my cable company (who I use only for internet access) decides to change pricing and it ends up costing me more to watch netflix (this includes if netflix increases its prices due to the cable company pushing back and charging netflix) then I will cancel both. I'll save more money and be free from the internet at home. I suppose that really is truly "Internet Freedom"!

> then I will cancel both. Which is exactly why it won't happen even if they were given the option... Everyone would flock to the ISPs who didn't do this. Or to technology options such as encryption and VPNs to circumvent it, while still using the cheaper packages. Selective internet packages has been an incredibly unpopular idea among the public and has been for over a decade. I'm not sure why people think the only…

You have a choice of ISPs?

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

#383

Post by takeda » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 7:42 PM UTC

creaghpatr wrote: post #181

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…

Don't you see that Google does this already with zero government/user oversight? This deeply cynical view has already come true.

Just because Google has huge power doesn't mean we should also allow this and change from really hard to impossible to replace Google.

Lack of NN will allow ISPs to essentially implement censorship in addition to what we have.

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

#384

Post by goialoq » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 7:42 PM UTC

40acres wrote: post #334

My half glass full nature tells me that we will be alright. The internet was born and thrived w/o explicit net neutrality laws for a long time (~20+ years). We have seen major technology players come out in support of net neutrality, and I believe that if any funny buisness is uncovered we will see a huge backlash vs. the companies that are playing favorites. All and all it says one major thing to me. We cannot rely…

We didn't need net neutrality as long as non-neutrality was too complicated to implement.

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

#385

Post by amsheehan » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 7:43 PM UTC

skywhopper wrote: post #382

dmix wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then I will cancel both. Which is exactly why it won't happen even if they were given the option... Everyone would flock to the ISPs who didn't do this. Or to technology options such as encryption and VPNs to circumvent it, while still using the cheaper packages. Selective internet packages has been an incredibly unpopular idea among the public and has been for over a decade. I'm not sure why people think the only…

You have a choice of ISPs?

I have one choice. I guess that's a choice.

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

#386

Post by NegativeLatency » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 7:44 PM UTC

skywhopper wrote: post #382

dmix wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then I will cancel both. Which is exactly why it won't happen even if they were given the option... Everyone would flock to the ISPs who didn't do this. Or to technology options such as encryption and VPNs to circumvent it, while still using the cheaper packages. Selective internet packages has been an incredibly unpopular idea among the public and has been for over a decade. I'm not sure why people think the only…

You have a choice of ISPs?

I only have Comcast (coax) or Century Link (dsl). Basically there's no choice for me.

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

#387

Post by skywhopper » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 7:44 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #361

shmerl wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The problem is that ISP shills that make these decisions don't care about public opposition But they do care most about making money from the public and no one has convinced me that filtering internet packages by website makes any technical, marketing, or business model sense at all. This has proven to be incredibly unpopular idea with the public for over a decade as well, whenever it has come up in the press. It w…

You're assuming that most people have access to more than one ISP (they don't), or that statements by ISPs about what they intend to do or not do are truthful (they aren't). Specifically statements promising they would never do anything that would break net neutrality rules, while arguing against the imposition of net neutrality rules, would not make sense. Why oppose something you have no intention of doing?

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

#388

Post by dmix » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 7:44 PM UTC

skywhopper wrote: post #382

dmix wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then I will cancel both. Which is exactly why it won't happen even if they were given the option... Everyone would flock to the ISPs who didn't do this. Or to technology options such as encryption and VPNs to circumvent it, while still using the cheaper packages. Selective internet packages has been an incredibly unpopular idea among the public and has been for over a decade. I'm not sure why people think the only…

You have a choice of ISPs?

Yes, and if you are in the minority of people who don't this will incentivize every nerd in your area to create an ISP to offer unfiltered internet. But more importantly this doesn't depend on competition to make ISPs realize it's a bad idea either.

The technical hurdles and push back from the tech companies, media, and public are being extremely underrated. This whole scenario is far more complicated than the ISPs making a greedy choice one day.

Regardless I'd rather we regulate actual threats rather than hand-wavy hypothetical ones.

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

#389

Post by IronWolve » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 7:44 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #37

Used to work for a local ISP (ILEC). "Deregulation" isn't a real thing until they remove the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) and competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) regional monopolies enforced by law. Until that happens, all this does is screw consumers. Honestly, internet service needs to be declared a public utility.

Then the big companies bought up all the smaller isp's, then the telcos refused access to smaller companies.

Thats why internet service kept dropping in costs, more choices as more providers. Now you are lucky if you got more than 1 provider (or many in the USA, none)

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

#390

Post by gervase » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 7:45 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #375

jrs235 wrote: post #366

Wow. If my cable company (who I use only for internet access) decides to change pricing and it ends up costing me more to watch netflix (this includes if netflix increases its prices due to the cable company pushing back and charging netflix) then I will cancel both. I'll save more money and be free from the internet at home. I suppose that really is truly "Internet Freedom"!

> then I will cancel both. Which is exactly why it won't happen even if they were given the option... Everyone would flock to the ISPs who didn't do this. Or to technology options such as encryption and VPNs to circumvent it, while still using the cheaper packages. Selective internet packages has been an incredibly unpopular idea among the public and has been for over a decade. I'm not sure why people think the only…

In many areas, there are only 1 (maybe 2) ISPs, so there is no viable alternative choice.

It is also quite easy to detect whether someone is using a VPN, so I don't see why they wouldn't also dictate which protocols are permissible for each "package".

This would be in-line with the packages offered which require the users to install MITM certs and/or use provider-based DNS servers in order to ensure tracking of all online traffic (in exchange for a "discount", of course).