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

441–450 of 674 posts

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

#441

Post by ghrifter »

page 29 - https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-60A1_Rc...

85. Need for the No Paid Prioritization Rule. The Commission concluded in the Title II Order that “fast lanes” or “paid prioritization” practices “harm consumers, competition, and innovation, as well as create disincentives to promote broadband deployment.”189 The Commission adopted this ex ante flat ban on individual negotiations to address an apparently nonexistent problem. The ban on paid prioritization did not exist prior to the Title II Order and even then the record evidence confirmed that no such rule was needed since several large Internet service providers made it clear that that they did not engage in paid prioritization190 and had no plans to do so.191 We seek comment on the continued need for such a rule and our authority to retain it.

ex ante: based on forecasts rather than actual results.

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

#442

Post by DenisM »

My T-Mobile LTE connection has twice the bandwidth of Comcast, and decent ping. I can add uncapped tethering for $25. I’m honestly tempted to do just that.

And that’s just LTE, 5g will increase the speeds and capacity another order of magnitude. I think the whole cable monopoly will come to an end rather quickly.

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

#443

Post by collinmanderson »

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?

90% have at least two providers of 10Mbps+ speed, but only 20% have at least two providers of 25Mbps+ speed.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br...

That could change though as more providers are rolling out fiber. (AT&T just rolled out Fiber to the Home in my neighborhood, and Comcast says they will do the same soon.)

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

#444

Post by dragonwriter »

ghrifter wrote: post #439
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…

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.

> Internet companies didnt make fast lanes and shit for 20 years

I assume you mean 1984-2004, the 20 years preceding both the FCC first adopting and first acting to enforce network neutrality rules (under the title “Network Freedom” principles, which later became “Open Internet”.)

Since 2004 there've been all kinds of non-neutral action and an evolving approach to enforcing neutrality responding to court decisions closing off certain approaches until Title 2 was the only thing left.

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

#445

Post by dmix »

bootlooped wrote: post #436
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…

> 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.

> a given area would conveniently move to this pricing model around the same time.

ISPs do this too. So does McDonalds and Burger King. And most other industries with oligopolies.

Just because pricing shifts in sync doesn't mean they will all take a major risk in changing towards TV-style packages (Social media package to get Facebook/Twitter or Streaming package to get Netflix/Amazon Go!) also in sync.

And it would have to be in sync. The only way it could work is if one takes a risk and customers don't immediately flock to the other one before they do it too. It's going to be incredibly unpopular and I highly doubt it will be synchronized without some illegal antitrust laws being violated before they realize it's not a good business decision.

Besides I'm not against the idea of having regulation if they do try it. I'm just not convinced anyone will, successfully.

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

#447

Post by Dirlewanger »

artursapek wrote: post #416
XeO3 wrote: post #345

There was an article on techdirt which outlined the aftermath of killing NN in Portugal. The ISP started splitting net into several packages. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNGlrABUIAAr9RO.jpg:large

https://twitter.com/Sinius1/status/923982728424513536

That guy is getting too worked up over a small misattribution. Does he think the world works in a vacuum and other companies aren't taking note? Doesn't matter if it's phone or residential service, the fact that it's been enacted is absolutely egregious.

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

#448

Post by Mithaldu »

bluetwo wrote: post #175
ghewgill wrote: post #89

For those who don't understand why net neutrality is important, it is worthwhile to read about the history of communications (telephone, radio, TV). There is an excellent book by Tim Wu called The Master Switch [0] which investigates the history of communications (with an American focus), describes how each industry start out open to all (farmers using fences for telephone, independent radio broadcasters), and each o…

And our mistake here is not finding a way to explain it that doesn't require reading a book.

Explaining isn't the crucial part. Everyone who hears it understands "ISPs get to decide which websites you can see with the basic package and more cost upgrades".

The hard part is giving people something useful and worthwhile to do about it.

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

#449

Post by outsidetheparty »

dmix wrote: post #437
outsidetheparty wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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.

It's the flip side of the same coin. Without net neutrality, ISPs will be able to charge content providers like Netflix a toll to not be throttled out of viablity -- who will then presumably pass the costs on to end consumers -- or the ISPs can directly charge end consumers an extra toll for access to the full internet. (Of course they'll do both, after some experimentation to find the best profit::outrage ratio.)

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

...they kinda did? In that Verizon had to back off and wait for net neutrality to be repealed before they could try again?

(I assume you meant FCC, not FTC, in all of this. The FTC, of course, doesn't have any authority here until after the common carrier regulations are lifted. So, roughly a month from now.)

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

#450

Post by irl_zebra »

deusofnull wrote: post #422
milofeynman wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see your profile says "data scientist in training" I would love for you to use some of your training to supply your post with actual data or sources. Everything I see reported disagrees with so many of your assumptions. Like your unstated assumption of some sort of fair and competitive market where they will lose money if they don't treat their customers right. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06…

Wait but I thought the free market operated in good faith and not by brutally cutting corners on service, monopolizing, and lobbying government for preferential treatment?

No, you got it wrong. The free market operates by brutally cutting corners on service, monopolizing, and lobbying government for preferential treatment.
Post reply on HN