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

471–480 of 674 posts

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

#471

Post by karmelapple »

wang_li wrote: post #469
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…

Focusing on even getting it to that point is important, though. I'd suggest let's focus our efforts on getting some bit of Net Neutrality written into law (not just a guideline by the FCC) to at least protect certain things, then move to improve that law over time.

Let's not sacrifice the good for the perfect.

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

#472

Post by dragonwriter »

paul7986 wrote: post #465

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...

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

The 2013 uproar was with a pro-neutrality majority on the FCC, and was a reaction to what critics perceived as a too-weak implementation of neutrality. While certain people (John Oliver, notably) acted like the FCC majority was anti-neutrality, this was basically a disagreement between the loud public critics and the FCC over methods where the goals were shared.

The scenario is very different now.

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

#473

Post by dmix »

dragonwriter wrote: post #467
dmix wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a perfect example of the ridiculous lengths this idea would have to go to sound feasible. Hence why I believe it's so detached from reality.

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

#474

Post by dllthomas »

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.)

It should be noted that that's 90% of census blocks. IIUC, if one household has access to one provider, another household has access to a different provider, and no one else has any access, that's part of that 90%. If people aren't making their housing decisions based significantly on their choice of internet provider, that's not really competition.

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

#475

Post by outsidetheparty »

owie829 wrote: post #461
outsidetheparty wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. N…

Plan fails to meet the existing standards? Just redefine the standards to fit your plan! It's so simple!

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

#476

Post by thirdsun »

rhino369 wrote: post #363
jermaustin1 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will have a hard time streaming Netflix/Hulu/VOD on anything < 25mbps.

Should get you to 720p.

Well, now add a family to the equation and those 25 mbps are anything but enough.

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

#477

Post by dragonwriter »

dmix wrote: post #473
dragonwriter wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's a perfect example of the ridiculous lengths this idea would have to go to sound feasible. Hence why I believe it's so detached from reality.

ISPs have already selectively blocked particular firms (until agreeing to stop in response TO FCC enforcement action), so why (freed from the threat of enforcement) wouldn't they do that but also offer the firm a way to buy their way out of it?

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

#478

Post by PMan74 »

SimonPStevens wrote: post #122

Question for HN... As a non-american, what can I do to help you? I'm from the UK, and I'm fairly worried that if this happens in the US, we'll be next. I obviously don't have a US representative to call. Is there anything I can do to support the net neutrality fight? (Will donate to EFF if I can think of nothing better)

> As a non-american, what can I do to help you?

Well the EU seem to have a decent (if slow moving) record on consumer protection (PSD, PSD2, roaming, data protection, etc.) so maybe lobby your MEP

> I'm from the UK

No, wait ...

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

#479

Post by orthecreedence »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #440
orthecreedence wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If said mayor never wants to see another term, I guess it's within the realm of possibility. Also, at that point, the situation is the same as now (with one organization calling all the shots) but at least it's contained to one town.

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

#480

Post by djrogers »

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.)

Directly from the article you linked:

> Even these numbers overstate the amount of competition, because an ISP might offer service to only part of a census block. The percentage of households with choice is thus even lower.

This is especially true with DSL @10mb - it’s common for DSL providers to have lower speeds for some customers due to distance limitations. Also, is 2 providers at 10mb really enough ‘choice’ to force the market to do the right thing here? Especially considering that those 2 providers are likely one of only 3 or 4 national ISPs...

I am a huge proponent of market freedom and market choices, but the system we have now has embedded natural and regulatory monopolies and duopolies - that’s the opposite of a free market.

Post reply on HN