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

391–400 of 674 posts

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

#391

Post by matt4077 »

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…

No, no, no! This is not the problem with net neutrality. This is some generic argument for the regulation of monopolies, and as such, it is fine.

But net neutrality is devious beyond the abuse of a local monopoly. It doesn't matter if there are ten ISPs available to any given consumer.

The problem is that creates a new monopoly: that of access to an ISPs subscriber. See my aunt-comment (to this) for the full argument.

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

#392

Post by dmix »

skywhopper wrote: post #387
dmix wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

My counter point does not depend entirely on competition. That is merely one counter-balance available to much of the country who have more than one ISP available, of the many I mentioned (technical, marketing, business model).

Why not create regulation in response to real scenarios that have actually happened instead of hypothetical ones that are already have plenty of other drawbacks?

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

#393

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

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…

Why exactly are ISPs opposing net neutrality if it's their intention anyway?

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

#394

Post by beagle3 »

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…

Netflix was throttled, mostly By Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon, which all have businesses competing with Netflix outside the internet.

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

#395

Post by dave5104 »

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…

> This would be a boon to any ISP who DIDN'T do this. Competition, and obvious lack of business sense, has always been a far larger counter-balance to this idea.

Where I'm at, it's Comcast or nothing. Most of the US does not have any ISP competition. It's usually 1 ISP to choose from, or if you're lucky, 1 ISP with expected speeds and 1 ISP over DSL.

I really wish I lived somewhere with multiple options, because if anything like this website bundle scenario did play out, I wouldn't have any choice in avoiding it.

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

#396

Post by BinaryIdiot »

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…

> Everyone would flock to the ISPs who didn't do this.

I wish I had your optimism. I live in the damn Bay Area and I have two choices for ISPs:

1. Comcast Cable

2. Dial-up....if I get my phone provided by Comcast

Every placed I've lived at so far on the East and West coast, even in populated areas, I have usually just Comcast and, occasionally, a terrible DSL provider. That's it. It's quite common across the USA to have little or no choice in ISPs.

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

#397

Post by zipwitch »

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…

Something that seems to be forgotten in this day and age is that corporations exist at the pleasure of the citizens (aka taxpayers) because said corporations offer them things that are deemed to be net public goods. Why should you be allowed to build your network in our country in the first place? (Especially when we could do it ourselves at cost and not give you a percentage off the top?)

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

#398

Post by valine »

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…

But what if your only choice for ISP is Comcast? 50 million Americans only have access to one ISP. You can't just switch providers when you only have one provider to choose from. Comcast could do this very easily and millions of Americans would be stuck paying more money for worse service.

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

#399

Post by matt4077 »

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"!

They will not change the end-user prices you pay. But they will charge the next netflix, or google, or github that comes around to get their website to you. That startup will never have a choice but to pay up, if they're interested in reaching their customers. They will be charged exactly what their per-customer profit is, minus one cent.

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

#400

Post by BinaryIdiot »

dmix wrote: post #388
skywhopper wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

> this will incentivize every nerd in your area to create an ISP to offer unfiltered internet

Uh, how do you think these "nerds" are going to provide broadband? It's highly capital intensive to lay cabling so you're either going to piggyback off of someone like Comcast (who is going to charge you a lot) or you're going to piggyback off of someone's wireless which is also very expensive.

Post reply on HN