Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 116 posts

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#91

Post by ethbro »

aerotwelve wrote: post #61
alehul wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about throwing capital at developing a better way to route traffic than BGP? Or trying to further increase bandwidth and be a faster 'dumb pipe'?

That's a really interesting point. If ISPs reinvested some of their revenue into networking research (or even more applied /R&D work), it would go a long way towards both advancing our field and improving their general reputations. Networking is not my area of expertise, so it's possible that some do this already. I guess I always assumed that ISPs had research departments whose members would be involved in drafting…

It's about like you'd expect. They do.

The interesting thing is that a huge focus appears to be cost-sensitive. As last mile operators, they have relatively low profit-per-customer (compared to a backhaul operator) with which to build each final physical network link.

Hence crazy stuff like "fiber to the box and short-run copper standard to the house".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableLabs

https://www.cablelabs.com/about-cablelabs/member-companies/

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#92

Post by r00fus »

Gargoyle wrote: post #47

HN users have been pounding loudly on the anti-Facebook wardrums. Where did you imagine that going?

So by questioning FB I support ISPs? Fallacious logic (to be sure - it's a false dichotomy)

I support people's privacy - from all-of-the-above.

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#93

Post by ethbro »

drawkbox wrote: post #86
ethbro wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let me know when you route around your ISP. Right now? I can VPN to Switzerland. And I can use a TLS encrypted channel to most of the Internet. Until ISPs start banning / slow laning encryption or mandating ISP-controlled computers, hostile network links are a solved problem.

Just wait til ISPs want to sell you VPNs... for [insert random marketing benefit like 'security', 'privacy', 'discounts', 'no data cap', 'cheaper' that hides throttling competitors and allows them to install an app on your devices to do whatever they want including scraping, which many people will fall for due to abused instilled trust from their privileged network gateway position they bribed to attain]

No doubt. Extrapolating down the current trajectory, probably dovetailed with law enforcement concerns, there's no way that doesn't happen.

Encryption moots all the additional value they're trying to create.

That's essentially their play with mobile-accessible first party content players. Make it easy / mandate it, and people will happily walk into the walled garden where they can be watched.

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#94

Post by dsfyu404ed »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #46
wgerard wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every single regulation starts from an "untenable place", almost by definition. I guess I'd disagree with that. Many environmental regulations are highly defensible, for example, especially when they arise in light of new evidence. I could also be wrong, but I don't believe most environmental regulations are proposed by powerful, monopolistic competitors of oil companies (which is a big part of what makes this prop…

Environmental regulations are a great example because large parts of the US population are in communities tied to industries that were eventually saddled with environmental regulations. Many of those people believe that the regulations are part of why their industries declined. For them, the environmental regulations are not highly defensible. Similarly in tech, many of the people arguing against regulations are econ…

Environmental regulations are a great example of legacy spaghetti.

Legislation not passed by a suitably large majority should automatically come with a 10yr sunset provision.

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#95

Post by root_axis »

ethbro wrote: post #85
joe_the_user wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations. Technically, "Big web" would be perhaps a structural oligopoly [1] or you could say the market has monopolistic competition[2]. they're protected by the network effect, they provide unique products that are hard to duplicate. They are not actual monopolies as economists define them (…

So your contention is that structural oligopolies (or markets with monopolistic competition) should not be regulated? I'd be curious to know why.

Why should they be regulated? They provide a popular, non-essential product for free. What threat are we protecting the consumer from in the name of this regulation? Consumers are free to visit any competitor site with identical ease of accessibility and competitors have very few barriers to entry (though this trend is slowly changing, e.g. in wireless land where a lack of net-netruality has enabled cell phone providers to harm competition by offering free data-transfer for partnered services like Spotify. A start-up will never be able to compete because their potential customers will pay streaming data fees to use their service or pay nothing to stick with the established incumbent.

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#96

Post by jknoepfler »

ethbro wrote: post #85
joe_the_user wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations. Technically, "Big web" would be perhaps a structural oligopoly [1] or you could say the market has monopolistic competition[2]. they're protected by the network effect, they provide unique products that are hard to duplicate. They are not actual monopolies as economists define them (…

So your contention is that structural oligopolies (or markets with monopolistic competition) should not be regulated? I'd be curious to know why.

the contention is that they are obviously different in kind, and the difference in kind makes it fairly obvious why we would want regulation for ISPs prima facea, but not content companies like Facebook and Netflix. The government does not protect Netflix's status as a media platform any more than they protect Blockbuster.

ISPs are more akin to power companies, which provide vital infrastructure in virtue of government fiat.

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#97

Post by JustSomeNobody »

ethbro wrote: post #49
drawkbox wrote: post #20

The ISPs are in an all out attack on competitors like Facebook/Google/Netflix/others. ISPs bought their way into the market with the ISP privacy protections being removed [1][2] and net neutrality being killed rather than innovating. The privacy protections being removed helped lessen the FCC grip on privacy and helped their case, with legislators not the people, to remove FCC net neutrality protections. It is obviou…

I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations. For ISPs, the council is that they should be regulated (e.g. net neutrality, data privacy). For Facebook, Google, et al. the council is that they shouldn't be regulated (e.g. EU GDPR). I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately…

At this point people need an ISP. They do not, however, need Google|Netflix|Facebook, etc.

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#98

Post by drawkbox »

ethbro wrote: post #93
drawkbox wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wait til ISPs want to sell you VPNs... for [insert random marketing benefit like 'security', 'privacy', 'discounts', 'no data cap', 'cheaper' that hides throttling competitors and allows them to install an app on your devices to do whatever they want including scraping, which many people will fall for due to abused instilled trust from their privileged network gateway position they bribed to attain]

No doubt. Extrapolating down the current trajectory, probably dovetailed with law enforcement concerns, there's no way that doesn't happen. Encryption moots all the additional value they're trying to create. That's essentially their play with mobile-accessible first party content players. Make it easy / mandate it, and people will happily walk into the walled garden where they can be watched.

Also, if you already use a VPN I'd say you already don't trust your ISP but you want them to have more power?

My evil genius side tells me that ISPs have already been developing VPN clients and probably own many third party ones through shell corps and obscuring/finagling ownership offshore even. In the last few years some have really taken off and gotten lots of funding and advertising and fit this model, I won't name names but I have my conjecture suspicions on a handfuls of them.

Sketchy or poser VPN clients can say they don't keep logs but they can easily transfer it off to the ISPs which they are now LEGALLY allowed to sell off and share.

Because VPN clients are apps installed on devices (mobile/desktop/tablets etc) they can basically do anything to get that data including scraping destinations and content from unencrypted browsers and apps once the handshake is complete and decrypted.

You are thinking naively or aren't thinking predatory or evil enough to think like ISP bullies yet. ISPs didn't bribe and lobby HARD for over a decade removing privacy protections and neutrality of networks just to be blocked by encrypted transmissions.

ISPs have also been very friendly to surveillance overreaches, they probably cut deals for using that data and since there are so few and your gateway it is easy. [1][2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

[2] https://www.wired.com/2013/06/nsa-whistleblower-klein/

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#99

Post by ethbro »

jknoepfler wrote: post #96
ethbro wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your contention is that structural oligopolies (or markets with monopolistic competition) should not be regulated? I'd be curious to know why.

the contention is that they are obviously different in kind, and the difference in kind makes it fairly obvious why we would want regulation for ISPs prima facea, but not content companies like Facebook and Netflix. The government does not protect Netflix's status as a media platform any more than they protect Blockbuster. ISPs are more akin to power companies, which provide vital infrastructure in virtue of governme…

You're using Netflix as a straw man for your argument. Facebook isn't a content company, Netflix is not yet vertically integrated, and it makes less than 1/7th of Facebook's profits.

I've also never stated that ISPs shouldn't be regulated.

In fact, I'd prefer they both be regulated in order to promote open access to the market and more disruption.

So I ask again, why would we not want to regulate structural oligopolies?

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#100

Post by joe_the_user »

ethbro wrote: post #85
joe_the_user wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations. Technically, "Big web" would be perhaps a structural oligopoly [1] or you could say the market has monopolistic competition[2]. they're protected by the network effect, they provide unique products that are hard to duplicate. They are not actual monopolies as economists define them (…

So your contention is that structural oligopolies (or markets with monopolistic competition) should not be regulated? I'd be curious to know why.

So your contention is that structural oligopolies (or markets with monopolistic competition) should not be regulated?

That's nowhere in my argument. I merely pointed that government grant monopolies pretty much automatically should be regulated since they are virtually extensions of government fiat already ("we" give Comcast etc a monopoly on placement on phone poles and similar stuff, we should get something for that) and that this situation isn't comparable to monopolistic competition.

If you're curious, I think actual private companies should be regulated when their actions involve negative externalities [1] in their production process - chemical companies should not be able to dump toxins into rivers, broadly greenhouse gases should be limited, etc.

One might argue that Facebook selling people's data to the highest bidder is another kind of negative externality. I would argue that a better outcome is consumer education, gradually people learn whatever they post online has a significant risk of being public. Similarly, it's better for people to learn not to be manipulated by simple schemes than to imagine a firewall against the manipulations of evil people. Just consider that a firewall against manipulations of evil people would let in the manipulation of "good people", right? Perhaps that's the whole idea.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Post reply on HN