Mozilla is one of the few groups on the internet I'm proud to support. Keep up the good fight!
I supported them until they kicked out Brendan Eich over his personal political leanings.
Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
91–100 of 205 posts
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
This can only be fixed by the FTC, yes. But it's against Google's interests for antitrust law to come back into vogue, so they've put a lot of money into getting folks on board with the FCC, which doesn't have jurisdiction over Google, being in charge. In fact, the Title II classification that net neutrality supporters are so big on actually exempts ISPs from FTC regulation, preventing the government from breaking up…
What a joke. The idea that the US is going to break up monopolies and conspiring oligarchies is plain laughable. While you're talking about fairy tales, why don't you suggest that if elected officials were honest...
The blocked T-Mobile/ATT merger was one of the greatest decisions of the decade. T-Mobile has kept everyone honest.
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Check again, Google isn't the one most people are worried about. They are worried about Comcast, Cox, AT&T and the like that own ISPs/broadband, content and control your privacy on every site you go to with the ISP privacy bill they put through, which they moved to the FTC from the FCC so they could control it better. You don't have to go to Google, you are stuck with your ISP and the other fake competitive ISP that…
I found it pretty easy to switch ISPs, but it would be pretty hard for me to quit Google. Nobody expects my IP address to be static, and that’s the only thing I lose when I switch. I get that some people can’t switch. The ISPs suck, they are the most hated companies in the world and all. The suckage takes the form of “they don’t show up for the appointment on time” or “they raised my bill by $20” which produces a lot…
Please stay on HN.
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Monopolies need to be broken up and it can lead to good things, even just threatening Microsoft in the 90s led to Google, Apple, etc emergence. Google and Apple creating their own monopoly-like business in turn (locking you in their walled gardens as much as then can). It certainly looks like a pattern, with consumers not having much of a choice in the end.
> Google and Apple creating their own monopoly-like business in turn (locking you in their walled gardens as much as then can). It certainly looks like a pattern, with consumers not having much of a choice in the end. Agreed but you can still choose those, you can't really choose your local ISP now they want to inspect packets, control which ones they slow down and have access to all your private data to sell. They l…
You can choose your ISP about as much as you can choose your mobile OS. Sure, maybe you have one or two choices of ISP. But is it any different one level up the stack? Your mobile OS is either Android (Google) or iOS (Apple). What makes one monopoly different from the other?
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you can always use DSP, cable, satellite, or even tether off a wireless if you don't like your home ISP. Just like you can use alternative search engines and services (even FOSS self-hosted ones) if you don't like Google.
> But you can always use DSP, cable, satellite, or even tether off a wireless if you don't like your home ISP. You can, if you're willing to accept a second-rate experience. But avoiding that is the whole point of net neutrality enforcement. ADSL is fundamentally unable to compete with DOCSIS or fiber; phone lines simply do not have sufficient bandwidth except over impractically short distances. Satellite can never o…
>Satellite can never offer acceptable latency.
Satellite internet can offer very competitive latency, even though nobody is doing it so far. Small cubesats make lower orbits viable than what's currently used for satellite internet. At a low earth orbit of 400km (about the height of the ISS) you have a round trip time of just 3ms.
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#96Am I the only person who thinks this whole approach to Net Neutrality is wrongly pursued through the FCC? Hear me out: if the networks don't access a physically limited resource like the RF spectrum and there isn't any censorship issue at stake, if the issue is truly differential access and usage due to oligopolistic limitation, isn't it for the FTC to intervene and bust up throttling and content blocks under restrai…
Am I missing something? I thought, and I could be wrong, that this whole mess got started when they tried to establish NN through the FTC, but Verizon took them to Court on the basis that the FTC didn't have the authority to do that, and the FTC lost. Hence where we are with the FCC. If my version of reality is correct, it would seem the FCC implementation boat has sailed.
I thought Verizon sued over Title I classification (still FCC). They win and Title I status was removed. Then the FCC tried again with Title II. I could also be wrong.
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google and Apple creating their own monopoly-like business in turn (locking you in their walled gardens as much as then can). It certainly looks like a pattern, with consumers not having much of a choice in the end. Agreed but you can still choose those, you can't really choose your local ISP now they want to inspect packets, control which ones they slow down and have access to all your private data to sell. They l…
You can choose your ISP about as much as you can choose your mobile OS. Sure, maybe you have one or two choices of ISP. But is it any different one level up the stack? Your mobile OS is either Android (Google) or iOS (Apple). What makes one monopoly different from the other?
ISP monopolies control all my access to the internet, that is the difference. They affect everything I do on my mobile (whether Android or iOS or other), desktop and all businesses built on top of it. ISPs control a layer that everything runs on and they have monopolies all across the US. Is that smart? ISP/Broadband mafia wants a cut of everything, with data caps and overages they are already taking a cut of digital purchases while I subsidize their ads they serve me.
Android or iOS are just OSs and there have always been a small amount of those that are market leaders. It is nice to have 2 instead of one that we had on desktop essentially for a while. There are lots of other mobile OSs (Windows, WebOS, linux phones) though but those two are the top. They don't have a location lock or local monopoly on anyone, they won their users through innovation and products people wanted. The exact opposite could be said of ISPs today even though they were innovators in the 90s'/00s when there were many.
I have zero choice of my ISP in my location I have Cox at 100Mbps which is decent and CenturyLink at 12Mbps which is not even comparable. Cox gigablast and CenturyLink fiber is two miles over but stopped installing new when Google Fiber left. Competition could easily get us to gigabit everywhere but their competition is fake and their efforts resides in their past local monopoly areas. I'd literally pay for my line to be ran to my house but they won't. They want to eek out every last revenue cent with degrading service (data caps, overage charges) while the cost goes up, no speed improvements. I'd gladly pay more for more product.
Lots of ISPs delay is they want people to have to switch to their content/tv systems again instead of cord cutting, they are doing this by removing unlimited, adding data caps, and slowing service. They are either going to get people to switch or drive up the costs to offset losses due to cord cutting. People are cord cutting because it is a better product elsewhere and cost is too much.
Broadband companies originally disrupted the telco dial-up internet companies. I sometimes think it will take satellite internet from like SpaceX or some new innovation and current ISPs will be dropped like a hot rock, like phone lines for cable internet back on the 90s/00s.
Do you think it is smart to only have 1 provider in most of the US for broadband? Would you want that in your area?
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Make money", perhaps?
gEvil Corp. Being a publically traded company, they have a duty to make money for their shareholders (I think but am not sure that duty might even be legal). If they were a Social Benefit Corp, then they wouldn't have such a duty, and so could choose to not make money when doing so would cause evil.
And because Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL) is trading at like $1K/share, it's out of most people's hands to even be eligible for the shareholders' meeting. On top of that, the float is almost 603 million shares, and ~81% are held by institutions rather than private investors. ~10% of the company is held by "people" rather than other companies - not enough to make a real change happen in terms of corporate policy. If you could manage to get a coalition together to buy even 51% of the float (~$3.75B), not only would that represent a heck of a lot of money invested, but you could potentially step in and change the direction of the company as shareholders.
Big problem: that's not realistic.
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#99Mozilla is one of the few groups on the internet I'm proud to support. Keep up the good fight!
I supported them until they kicked out Brendan Eich over his personal political leanings.
I spend a non-zero amount of time fantasizing about how I'll be socially lynched out of my well-earned livelihood someday for some comment I made 40 years ago on Facebook–like personalities are etched in stone. I never used to do that.
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the parent poster, but for instance, but think having a dozen data loggers out in the field that only need to transfer a few 100k of data each day. No need for 4G or multi gigabyte packages plus hefty per-device line/access fee.
That has nothing to do with net neutrality. These companies are free under any form of the law to offer you a small-cap low-speed plan for a small fee but they don't bother. If they restricted the services you could access or their relative speeds, then you get into trouble.
This is the fundamental misunderstanding.
Most in the ISP crowd agree with what you are agreeing with. But the net neutrality folks predominantly reject this approach.
I want surgery over IP. I don’t want surgical packets treated the same as a YouTube packet.