So long Free Speech.
FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
561–570 of 674 posts
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#562Repealing net neutrality would only make sense if the layer underneath (the PHY consisting of fiber/copper/coax/wireless/whatever infrastucture including last-mile connections between every node) were subject to net neutrality instead [1], such that "anyone" could start an ISP that offers differentiated services on top of the same infra. Of course, today the last-mile infra and the ISP on top are tightly coupled, and…
That's what we ended up with in New Zealand, the underlying infrastructure is owned by companies that lease it to the ISPs, so anyone with enough cash can rent some cabinet space and start an ISP.
Before the unbundling, Telecom NZ basically had a monopoly on ADSL connections, connections cost a lot of money and had comically small caps (like 10 GB, which even in 2006 was not a lot). Now, in straight dollar terms, plans are cheaper, and uncapped plans are standard.
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#563For 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…
Andre Staltz has a pretty good article[0] about how that collapse is already happening with the likes of Facebook, Google, and Amazon taking over every other site.
[0]: https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.htm...
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#564Repealing net neutrality would only make sense if the layer underneath (the PHY consisting of fiber/copper/coax/wireless/whatever infrastucture including last-mile connections between every node) were subject to net neutrality instead [1], such that "anyone" could start an ISP that offers differentiated services on top of the same infra. Of course, today the last-mile infra and the ISP on top are tightly coupled, and…
Right, repealing net neutrality would only make sense if we keep net neutrality
^ underrated comment
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#565Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though this strongly contrasting view is not mainstream by any measure.
I think the Austrian school is considered legitimate school of economics though, right? It's not like these are amateur economists or anything.
I didn't say it's not a legitimate school of economics. I have 'The Road to Serfdom' sitting on my bookshelf among other works by members of the school.
However I did claim that the thought that EM spectrum should be privatized is not a mainstream one.
I imagine the more general idea that all public spaces and goods should be private is even less mainstream in the US, given the popularity of public roads, schools, parks etc.
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#566Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buyer beware and you get what you pay for. Didn't your parents teach you that? No? How about your school? Hmmm... What did they teach? Are they going to be able to filter facebook posts/ads "that conflict with Comcast's business or political interests" too? Out of youtube videos? Developing and maintaining that technology starts to get very expensive. If their political interests are really that nefarious, then I hig…
They can't filter the posts, but they can make it so that the data coming from those sites end up coming in at such a slow speed that they're pretty much unusable. And that would be just fine under the new regulations. > Why not address the real-world "nefarity" which is lobbying governments for special favors at the expense of the competition? Exactly who is lobbying for special favors here? From what I can tell, it…
> And that would be just fine under the new regulations.
But would it be good for business? A lot of what is already legal is not good for business, even though it might appear to be in the short term. Raising your prices by 100% is perfectly legal. Why aren't we trying to prevent that hypothetical?
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#567For 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…
Maybe, but it would be absolute folly to allow neutrality at layer 3 to be lost just to prove a point.
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Why on earth should whether you get those plans or not depend on whether Google Jesus has decided to show his face upon you?
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#569Earlier 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?
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?
If we don't want those things to happen, why allow them at all? Why wait, when we can just say up front, "Those things are not allowed to happen."
Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see
#570Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can't filter the posts, but they can make it so that the data coming from those sites end up coming in at such a slow speed that they're pretty much unusable. And that would be just fine under the new regulations. > Why not address the real-world "nefarity" which is lobbying governments for special favors at the expense of the competition? Exactly who is lobbying for special favors here? From what I can tell, it…
> And that would be just fine under the new regulations. But would it be good for business? A lot of what is already legal is not good for business, even though it might appear to be in the short term. Raising your prices by 100% is perfectly legal. Why aren't we trying to prevent that hypothetical?
Raising prices for all information: Fine (as long as you're not a monopoly, which unfortunately many ISPs are).
Raising prices for some information: Exerting control over what people see and can say; exerting control over the market and preventing fair competition. NOT OK. The whole issue at hand.