Live data from Hacker News

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

nytimes.com

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#871
post #135

This wouldn't be a problem if ISP's weren't de facto monopolies. If there was competition in this space, then there would be incentive to improve the infrastructure and Internet speeds. However, ISP's kill competition by making legal arrangements with local governments to only do business with them, and by cutting competitors' cables. Since we have no way to guarantee reasonable speeds to small time websites now, we…

For power users on websites like HN and reddit, this might seem true. But if you take a step back and realize that the large majority of Americans don't use the internet like you do, and maybe never will use the internet like you do, I think this argument holds far less water. Consider that it's estimated that 13% of Americans don't use the internet-- at all , for anything, ever.[1] Think about how many people probab…

Netflix has 52 million subscribers in the United States. https://www.statista.com/statistics/250934/quarterly-number-...

55% of Americans watched Netflix in the last year. http://www.businessinsider.com/percent-of-americans-who-watc...

98% of Americans think internet speeds need to be improved. https://tech.co/americans-internet-speeds-improving-2017-06

Roughly 50% are 'satisfied' with their home internet speeds but this is according to the FCC, which has lied to me a lot recently. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-298516A1.p...

[2015] Satisfaction with cable tv and internet falls to 7-year low, making them the worst industries. http://www.businessinsider.com/satisfaction-with-cable-and-i...

These are just the top links in the search results, not cherry picked at all. You seem to be extrapolating from your experience with ISP choice. I've lived in supposedly very high-tech American cities with only one choice of ISP over 2Mbps. Compare US prices and service to places like Scandanavia. What's the difference? Over here ISPs can extract a much larger fraction of value while providing smaller total value (worse service). This is a natural result of lightly-regulated monopolies and oligopolies. It doesn't mean that their choices not to invest are somehow best for the long-term growth of the internet, in any way shape or form. Their monetary incentives are not aligned with long-term growth of the Internet.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#872

Can someone clarify this for me? Perhaps my assumptions are incorrect: > 1. Bandwidth is limited > 2. Real-time streaming services, such as video, consume much more bandwidth (by sending more packets through the pipeline) than non-streaming services > 3. Net neutrality guarantees that each packet is delivered with the same priority Say Netflix takes up 20% of the bandwidth through its streaming services - each packet…

> ISPs can either (1) increase bandwidth in order to increase the amount of packets that get through, (2) throttle Netflix which they can't do under net neutrality, (3) charge Netflix (and Google, Facebook, etc.) to not get throttled which they can't do under net neutrality either, or (4) neither increase bandwidth nor throttle Netflix, resulting in all content slowing down and them losing customers to ISPs that will…

You’re missing the fact that telecom is less profitable (compared to ads/sub streaming) and when new cool ISP will try to return some investments by charging more or throttling, you’ll throw them over a dick exactly as you did with an old one. ISPs are no fools and will not jump into this trap.

It is your bandwidth that is increasing, not theirs.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#873
The argument of NN being a preemptive regulation on hypothetical future problems and thus could lead to unintentionally hurting "good" entities got me thinking why there can't be a new regulation scheme.

I'd call it "conditional enactment".

Basically, let us assume we want to regulate A because of a, b, and c reasons. We'll create a "conditional enactment" where it states the regulation proposal with reasons for regulating and the penalty for not abiding by the regulation. This basically acts as a save point where if some entity eventually does do A and qualifies one of those a,b,and c reasons, we'll continue on from that "save point". Now that we'll have more info, we can talk about what the pros and cons of regulating A are, adjust the regulation terms, adjust the punishment, and vote on the revised proposal. If the regulation passes, that entity is now subject to punishment even if the regulation passed after the entity's action was done. Any other entities that did A before the regulation passed is not subject to punishment.

This would potentially prevent the unintended side effects of the regulation and allow us to evaluate the state of the regulation while still putting the entities that could create harm in check.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#874

It’s a lot of hang wringing over nothing. Google, amazon, even Apple and Msft rely on a healthy internet. They represent over 2 trillion market cap. They can easily compete with the telecoms.

First, it's not an issue of "competing with" unless they start their own ISPs or, in the case of Google, restart development on their ISP. Water doesn't compete with the pipe. It just hopes the pipe decides not to squeeze.

Second, I doubt many people are crying over Google, Amazon, or someone like Facebook. They already are working on walled gardens and are happy to pay to eliminate competition. They actually don't rely on a healthy (in the sense of open, competitive, or free) internet at all. Small startups and free speech on the other hand does.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#875

I haven't seen anyone else post anything along these lines, but doesn't this make it legal for the the government to ask/force/pay ISPs to hide sites (e.g. wikileaks, etc)? Maybe that is why politicians didn't really try to stop it?

This is one of my biggest medium-to-long-term fears with net neutrality. I doubt that is explicitly in many politician's current game plan, but they will catch on to the possibilities sooner or later. It will start with ISP voluntary censorship of some high-profile clearly controversial sites, probably the Pirate Bay will be the first one to go. Then there will be a gradual creep (not sure what time scale to predict here), and eventually politicians will start reasoning that if ISPs are blocking sites anyway, we might as well order them to block certain others.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#876

The voters elected a Republican government. That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine. Anybody who told you that lobbying the FCC was going to make a difference here was, whether they meant to or not, selling a bill of goods. As someone who respects but mostly profoundly disagrees with principled Republican la…

1. voters did not elect a Republican government. Gerrymandering has given Republicans wins in many places where Democrats would have won in any other universe. Likely rigged electronic voting machines that have no audit trail have given Republicans votes they would not have had. *Targeted voter suppression campaigns have prevented people from voting who would have tipped the scales in favor of Democrats.

2. Republicans (and many Democrats) do not "under-regulate". They regulate in favor of paying corporations. Those regulations are not all typical visible regulations; many are special provisions or loopholes. That is not laissez-faire.

3. Since you re-iterate, I re-iterate. Republicans are not a party of deregulation. They are a party that supports monopolistic, bully-capitalist behaviors.

The only real solution for the US is that it suffer a slow decline in global and economic relevance until it becomes desperate for a change in behavior. Only then will the shit be flushed out of the government and campaign finance rules put in place to prevent another corrupt government that serves a very limited few people at the cost of 330million others.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#877
I’m surprised I haven’t seen more mention of the Neighborhood Network Construction Kit: http://communitytechnology.github.io/docs/cck/

I believe it has been partly created by the folks who are building their own internet service in Detroit (more about that at https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kz3xyz/detroit-me...)

While the fight rages on for the major providers to commit to being open and fair, I believe it is probably very prudent to simultaneously begin sorting out how we could go about 1) fostering competition and 2) creating community-backed local networks and making them appealing enough (even if just to us tech folks at first) that they start to catch on. If we start at the foundational level (i.e. getting peoples’ homes connected or connectable on a locally-controlled network, wireless or otherwise, regardless of whether that network still links up to a major provider’s backbone in turn, which it would), then we are in a better position to then start looking at linking up those local networks directly to one another (forming regional networks, etc) and also to backbones provided by companies/organizations that commit (in writing) to an open and fair internet. To that last point, I think it might be worthwhile to also explore the possibility of a non-profit organization with values similar to Mozilla finding a way to purchase, build, or otherwise control some of the internet backbone/internet access in America (forgive me, I know very little of what’s all involved at that level, I'm sure it's a herculean task).

In any case, this all seems daunting. But I propose that the initial approach is to start small, start local, but use a multi-pronged strategy (e.g. crowdfunding for projects, raising up wireless community networks, advocacy and marketing help for fair and privacy-conscious ISPs, exploration of non-profit backbone formation, etc), and pick up momentum.

If there is no real market competition, and we’re subject to monopolies, and those monopolies directly go against the loudly voiced will of their customers and what appears to be the majority of American citizens, then let’s give ‘em hell. It’s not a short-term project. But everything starts somewhere…

On my soapbox ------------- We are talking about who controls access to free speech here. As benign as it may seem to some people that an internet provider might be allowed to throttle some bandwidth and block some sites, their monopoly nature means that, under these new rules, they pose a threat of direct censorship of speech that reaches the masses, which in turn directly threatens the liberty of the American citizen. It’s important, both for us and for future generations, to fight this tooth and nail and to even go so far as to rebuild internet access ourselves over the course of years under a new charter if that’s actually what it takes. The internet is the greatest free speech tool we have as citizens. And regardless of whether we believe in regulation or de-regulation, the reality is that a group of monopoly controllers of internet access pushed hard for rules allowing them to throttle, censor, and use our data in ways that make many of us feel uneasy. They wouldn't push that hard if they didn't intend to use these allowances in some way. It’s a legitimate threat.

Overcoming this threat is a cause that’s worth thinking about, and acting on behalf of, in big and bold ways. And perhaps we could also solve for some of our ongoing privacy concerns along the way. Because, my god, what person does not wonder if we are slowly sliding away from being citizens who are truly free to speak our minds and not be spied on arbitrarily with a privacy situation such as we are facing, a situation which is already unreasonable and is getting worse.

Aren’t you tired of being leveraged against?

Hope is not lost. We just have to take it into our own hands and fight the fight. Because that’s what happens when you’re tired of it.

In the interim…

...while this gets started, we need to compile a list of internet service providers who will commit in writing on their customer agreements that they will not block or throttle access to content which is lawful. Perhaps we could also find providers willing to commit in writing that they will treat their users’ data as private, not sell our data to third parties, etc. We then need to become loud advocates for these companies. We need to effectively help them with their marketing by raising their visibility up and by encouraging people to switch to them. Imagine how many people would be interested in starting an ISP if they knew that they would get free marketing!

In other words, I propose that we mourn the state of things quickly and then transition into action. If nothing else, that might just be the most effective form of protest we could engage in. In fact, I think this might be the form of protest that works best today in a variety of realms...don’t just hold signs and march, don’t just voice frustration in venues, instead simply begin creating what you want to see...and don’t give up.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#878
post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans aren't pushing deregulation of the internet to make swing states happy. They are pushing for deregulation because that's what several billionaire campaign contributors want them to do.

That's more than a little bit off the mark. Both the U.S. and Europe are in the middle of a multi-decade economic boom resulting from deregulation. Telecom, airline, etc., deregulation isn't something we did on our own. Pretty much the whole developed world has massively deregulated these industries, and continues to do so, and continues to benefit from those policies. To me, the litmus test for whether deregulatory…

Except the fact that a lot of Europe is covered by net neutrality laws that are EU-wide..

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#879
post #239

How will this actually impact me? I saw one graphic which suggested this may make it cheaper for me to pay for just the services I need.

We don't know yet. You might have almost no change, you might find half the internet censored by default.

If ISPs wanted to make it cheaper for you to access a simpler level of services, they could have already done so by offering you lower internet speeds and small data caps. They kept prices high because you were willing to pay them and there wasn't (much) competition. They're not going to give up those profits willingly unless the new pricing plan can make them more money overall. So I wouldn't get too optimistic.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#880

The voters elected a Republican government. That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine. Anybody who told you that lobbying the FCC was going to make a difference here was, whether they meant to or not, selling a bill of goods. As someone who respects but mostly profoundly disagrees with principled Republican la…

"That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine." That is not why this is shocking. This proceeding is shocking because the legal basis for this change is dependent on a false statements about the technology involved. It goes beyond just, "Republicans prefer deregulation," or, "Republicans favor market-based approa…

So what you are saying is that the republican party in its current form is unvotable. I agree. Even people holding dear republican aligned beliefs should take note and realize that the party is not able to act aligned with their own interest.

I guess partisanship might simply be a huge problem because democrats can‘t recognize republicans as republicans any more - still because there are only 2 relevant parties - republicans don‘t see an alternative to the GOP and still go for the „in theory better aligned“ party. That should give any American pause to think and highlight the importance of choice when it comes to politics. Why not create a new republican party?

Post reply on HN