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

461–470 of 674 posts

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

#461

Post by owie829 »

outsidetheparty wrote: post #420
dmix wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> At the FCC's 25Mbps download/3Mbps upload broadband standard, there are no ISPs at all in 30 percent of developed census blocks and only one offering service that fast in 48 percent of the blocks. About 55 percent of census blocks have no 100Mbps/10Mbps providers, and only about 10 percent have multiple options at that speed. ... these numbers overstate the amount of competition, because an ISP might offer service…

> But with the FCC now chaired by Republican Ajit Pai, the commission suggested in its annual broadband inquiry last month that Americans might not need a fast home Internet connection. Instead, mobile Internet via a smartphone, with speeds of just 10Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream, might be all people need, the FCC now suggests.

but given a new definition of "broadband", competition will increase significantly. Now you can not only choose between Comcast and DSL, but AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile/Sprint. See? Lots of competition!

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/09/ajit-...

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

#462

Post by trumpownsyou420 »

api wrote: post #117
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…

A good way to get the right wingers might be to ask them what happens when their ISP blocks "hate speech" (as they or someone else defines it) or political speech that falls far outside well established political views. This is actually pretty likely to happen. Of course I suppose it'll be kind of funny to see God Emperor Trump usher in policies that make things like Gab and Voat unreachable. Top Kek!

kys cuckboi

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

#463

Post by deusofnull »

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…

As programmer in his mid 20s, NN was the first political issue I developed a position on when I was a child. The fight for the open Internet has been going on for a long time and I really reciprocate that feeling of helplessness in the face of these patently corrupt regulators. Im calling reps and filling comments with the FCC and telling everyone I know about this, but I still feel like these people are gonna shove it down our throats. This whole process is so anti-democratic it's depressing.

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

#464

Post by acetheface »

nickysielicki wrote: post #431
acetheface wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. >…

I think an important distinction would be the rate of investment in customer facing bandwidth vs the rate of investment into Tier 1 facing bandwidth. If they are spending more at the customer edge so they can sellmore ~100mbps plans to consumers, without the same rate of spending on the connections to T1 providers something is amiss. However if they are matching investment and continually adding bandwitdth to providers then I have no basis. I just dont think they are. I think they are allowing the oversubscription rate to bloom while the avg per user usage continues to grow. And have heard it first hand from one of the biggest Tier 1 telcos about the pain they go through when trying to upgrade bandwidth to Comcast.

As a provider on the net I dont have many options to ensure you quality access to my content. I can't route around Comcast if theyre your last hop. I can pay Comcast for the privilege to send you content but I only get around 50 million subscribers and at 10x the price of a Tier 1. The Tier 1 will get me access to the entire internet.

Also with all transit pricing, the more you buy the cheaper it is. So the bigger players have an unfair advantage in economy of scale when dealing with the likes of Comcast.

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

#465

Post by paul7986 »

Where is the same uproar that happened in 2013 and stopped this B.S.?

Is it because net neutrality is now a good thing for the big tech encumbents? I mean this stifles innovation aka the little guys who’d they have to buy or compete with. Though overall it stifles innovation period!

Stupid Trump.. the worst..a baby ..an egomaniac ..an embarrassment.. I could go on and on...

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

#466

Post by todayiamme »

mediocrejoker wrote: post #304
Delmania wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Here's a map of the major players carving up territory like cartels; https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16998/us-internet...

Notice how almost none of the service areas intersect? Internet competitiveness in the US is measured by census zones, and they know that. So they carve up territory block by block, allowing them to be engage in "competition" without competing. (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/isps-dont-want-t...)

And here's one of the many, many court cases and lobbying efforts they've engaged in to keep rivals from getting a toe hold in their territory; https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcas...

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

#467

Post by dragonwriter »

dmix wrote: post #456
dragonwriter wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure why people think the only that has held ISPs back from doing this is a 3yr old FTC regulation The FCC has been enforcing neutrality principles since 2004, through case-by-case actions through 2010, and through regulatory orders in 2010 and 2015. Even in the brief window between case-by-case enforcement being struck down in 2010 and the 2010 Open Internet Order and the longer window between the 2010 Ord…

Google or Amazon, or the rest of the tech industry, wouldn't be able to find the capital to build fast/unthrottled internet to eat Comcast's lunch? Alienating an entire industry and customer based like this would be a huge incentive for many parties, the market forces here are very much being downplayed. Not to mention the technical hurdles (encryption, VPNs) outside of the risk involved of convincing an executive bo…

> Google or Amazon, or the rest of the tech industry, wouldn't be able to find the capital to build fast/unthrottled internet to eat Comcast's lunch?

Not while paying a Comcast (and other ISPs) tax to reach existing users, which then funds Comcast (et al.) staying ahead of them.

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

#468

Post by dmix »

collinmanderson wrote: post #443
skywhopper wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

> That could change though as more providers are rolling out fiber.

And Google's competition heavily incentivized that rolling out fiber. Imagine what the threat of a new entrant offering unthrottled internet would do to these hypothetical plans?

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

#469

Post by wang_li »

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…

The problem with the current net neutrality debate is that it seems to stop at layer 3 of the ISO stack. There's no reason why we should have dozens of incompatible video calling apps, why media streaming only works with a particular vendor's application.

Not to mention that many of the big players in silicon valley like to jump back and forth over the line of "is a provider" / "is not a provider". Twitter and Google and Facebook like to police the content on their systems, which is their right, but at the same time they like to hold up the DMCA safe harbor provision anytime someone finds copyrighted material on their networks. They have no problem banning unpopular parties from their networks while simultaneously profiting from clear copyright violations.

We should insist that net neutrality extend all the way to layer 7.

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

#470

Post by acetheface »

sseveran wrote: post #432
acetheface wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Its not like the traffic is coming from no where. The traffic is being requested by Comcast's customers. So yes, they should be able to support the traffic their customers are requesting. If its not legitimate traffic, feel free to drop the peer.

My arguement is that ISPs should deliver the product they sell to consumers. If the consumers demand for Netflix goes up, the ISP should adapt to ensure proper bandwidth at peak. The internet on the whole and interconnection between companies is hardly static. Its constantly growing bandwidth wise and its really very simple to increase bandwidth to other providers. Technically its fairly easy without all the legal bits that get added in to peering agreements.

Post reply on HN