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

431–440 of 674 posts

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

#431

Post by nickysielicki »

acetheface wrote: post #308
nickysielicki wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ha…

> 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.

Almost certainly. Bad example, but the point still stands.

> 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.

I don't know if I agree with that. Even in the most rural parts of the US you probably have a handful of ISPs available, just maybe not the type of ISP that caters to power users on reddit and HN. Between LTE wireless providers, satellite, DSL, cable, I think most people have a greater degree of choice than we realize. A lot of these options are not going to cut it if you like Netflix and/or torrenting, but for casual facebook, wikipedia, and emailing-- arguably the usage patterns of the majority of US internet users, any of these providers will work out just fine.

If what you're saying is true, why do we see such a dramatic difference in the quality of service across the board in the past decade? We went from terrible GSM to incredibly fast LTE. You can now buy 25 Mbit satellite internet without a data cap. You used to be lucky to get 16m/2m cable internet, now I see the lowest tier of plans with speeds of anywhere from 60Mbit to 100Mbit. If there's no competition, why do we see this progress? Why would they put money into increasing their speeds if the market didn't force their hand?

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

#432

Post by sseveran »

acetheface wrote: post #318
nickysielicki wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>No, you're not, and you never were, and it's bordering on dishonesty to make this claim. At best, you're paying comcast for the same quality access to anything that can reach their network at that same quality. Even that is arguable I'd like to see where in the marketing literature it says this. Right on the pricing page it says Internet Access plans. It doesnt say Comcast network access plan. Also, I dont make Comc…

The issue typically is not that Comcast is oversubscribing their network, its that there is more traffic trying to enter their network from a specific peer than is provisioned. This is what was at the core of Cogent/Comcast dispute. If your position is that an ISP should be required to provide as much capacity to any peer who wants it than that is at least an intellectually honest argument to make. You could further extend that argument that it should be required to peer with anyone who demands it. If you and I started a transit provider tomorrow should, won a deal with a video provider should Comcast be required to peer with us?

This is really what should be at the heart of these discussions, not abstract claims about who is throttling who.

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

#433

Post by dragonwriter »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #428
Sacho wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean 15 years ago when NN didn't exist? Or 10 years ago? Or 5 years ago? Or 3 years ago? How did Google/Facebook/Netflix even make it when ISPs had all the way up to 2015 to ransom them?

Fifteen years ago Net Neutrality was the de facto policy. Nobody would dare block a site or have paid prioritization because it would topple numerous peering agreement Apple carts, and consumers had actually competitive choices between access providers. It didn’t become necessary to “make it official” until the consumer access industry was consolidated, giving rise to the idea of “hey, we know our consumers are payin…

> Fifteen years ago Net Neutrality was the de facto policy. Nobody would dare block a site

The first neutrality enforcement action was almost that long ago (12 years ago) over an ISP blocking access to Vonage (the telephone-over-internet service.)

The first FCC neutrality principles enforced by case-by-case actions were adopted in 2004. While the current Open Internet order is only a few years old, active, official FCC action in this area is not.

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

#434

Post by Goronmon »

agensaequivocum wrote: post #411
reefoctopus wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can change my cellphone provider, but there is only one ISP in my area. Competition doesn’t bring down prices when there is none.

So you need to work on removing local and possibly state regulations/codes to make it cheaper for startup ISPs to build infrastructure.

You are assuming that regulations exist that have a noticeable impact on infrastructure cost, and that, if these regulations exist, removing them would actually be a good thing.

Hypothetically speaking, there is a "regulation" that prevents me from killing my neighbor and taking their home/land. And removing that regulation would technically make it cheaper for me to purchase said land. But I doubt many people would be on board with those sorts of changes to solve a cost problem.

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

#436

Post by bootlooped »

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

Alternative scenario is that the major ISPs for a given area would conveniently move to this pricing model around the same time. The best example of this happening in real life, in a similar industry, is how Verizon and AT&T cell carrier offerings often move in sync in term of pricing and features, and not always to the benefit of the consumer.

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

#437

Post by dmix »

outsidetheparty wrote: post #429
dmix wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Have you forgotten the whole controversy about Verizon throttling Netflix back in July? This is a real scenario that has actually happened. http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-netflix-youtube-throt... Your other points hold up equally poorly: there are no unsolved technical hurdles in throttling or blocking specific sites or services -- as evidenced by the fact that they can and have already done so. As for "marke…

That is different from the type of satellite-tv style packages ("Social media package, Facebook/Twitter, for only $9.99!") type of thing that people are talking about with net neutrality.

And the current FTC regulations in question didn't do anything in regards to that issue you linked to?

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

#438

Post by acdha »

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…

> The internet was born and thrived w/o explicit net neutrality laws for a long time (~20+ years).

On the other hand, while the internet is approaching its 50th birthday for most of that time there was far less money involved and fewer players with monopoly status over it.

In the 90s, we had dialup and DSL from hundreds of service providers because DSL was subject to a similar neutrality provision which meant that the phone company had to resell access to copper at cost. That's a pretty huge difference: had, say, PacBell tried to steer pets.com traffic to a partner, every single one of their customers had the option to switch ISPs immediately without any loss of service quality.

Unfortunately that wasn't preserved for fiber and there has been massive consolidation in the industry, so most people have a choice between — if they're lucky — a massive cable company and a massive phone company. Many people live in buildings with exclusive contracts for only one company. In that environment, your choices are basically falling back to DSL if it's still available (increasingly not) or going without an increasingly vital utility.

I would be very hesitant to say our past experience is a good source of prediction for the modern market.

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

#439

Post by ghrifter »

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…

Shh you are going against the hive mind of people that watch a fucking comedian and accept his word as gospel and that this removal of title 2 "hurts muh free speech"

Internet companies didnt make fast lanes and shit for 20 years, removal of title 2 and suddenly they are? the fuck.

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

#440

Post by CodeWriter23 »

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…

I am a fan of muni broadband as a competitive alternative to the incumbents. But wouldn’t that enable a demagogue mayor to issue censorship directives via Executive Order?
Post reply on HN