Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

131–140 of 674 posts

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

#131
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "If you like your cable company, you'll love what this does for the Internet" HAHAHHAHAA, wow they're not even trying

That quote was from Tom Wheeler, ex-chairman of the FCC who opposes ending net neutrality. He was being sarcastic.

Woah they actually altered the quote in the article. The version I posted above is no longer the same.

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

#132
post #80
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are dropping cable due to the heavy-handed control and lack of choice. Why would ISPs want emulate that failing model? If Comcast is going to try to charge me more to be able to access Netflix, I'm gone.

How about if Comcast charges Netflix more to be able to access you? [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/12/comcastlevel3/

Isn't it the same though? Netflix (and other sites) will be more or less forced to pass those charges on to the consumers.

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

#133
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way are customers "held hostage"? If you sign up for an internet plan that promises not to throttle certain sites and then that provider throttles those sites, you can sue them. If you sign up for an internet plan that makes no such promises, why would one expect anything different? This may sound like a harsh reality, but it's called "taking personal responsibility" and "voting with your feet". Switch to ano…

Customers are “held hostage” because often there is only one choice of ISP. They may not offer throttling. How can you sue your ISP if there is a clause that you must go through binding arbitration instead? How can you switch to another internet provider if AT&T is the only game in town?

[deleted]

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

#134

"Net neutrality" is one of the most Orwellian terms in modern usage. It's a corporate welfare play by large tech companies to "solve" a "problem" that nobody can identify. It's pre-emptive, busy-body regulation at its worst. Who was being harmed in the first 20 years of the internet without these regulations? Whose lives have been made better? Compared to what? Net neutrality advocates are utterly unable to give conv…

Does your ISP have the ability to censor the internet for you? Do you watch Netflix? If you don't, that's ok, because most consumers do use it or a competing service. Internet Companies absolutely did try to charge Netflix extra, and in some cases throttled them. This was well documented. I don't know if you're a corporate shill or just genuinely lack the ability to comprehend how bad this is. Spectrum, Verizon and t…

It cuts both ways. What's to stop Google, Amazon, Netflix and Facebook from blocking all traffic from AT&T entirely? How long would Comcast or AT&T survive without access to the top 50 sites?

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

#135
post #32

Maybe I'm lone dissenter, but I don't understand the push back on this. People who read hacker news should be among the elite technologist, do we really all believe that every packet should be treated the same? Should an E911 call or tele-surgery packets really be treated the same as Netflix? Net neutrality forces the ISP to do that and that seems like madness to me.

If you're doing telesurgery over the public internet, then this is way down your list of problems.

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

#136
Is it time to go full decentralized peer-to-peer wireless mesh yet? I know it would be slow, but that's par for the course in most of the US anyway.

Routing would be painful, but something like IPFS would encourage peers to cache content in order to ensure faster access to the content they want.

It could be done if only the barrier to entry for normal folks was lower. I'm thinking a dedicated piece of hardware in a form-factor like the Google Home where the setup would be as simple as plugging it in to the wall.

Servers would still be in datacenters, but the ISPs don't get to play price and speed games with their connections.

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

#137
Repealing 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 many states have enacted laws and regulations that restrict or forbid municipalities' efforts to build out a neutral infra [2].

I find it absurd that some politicians support both the repeal of net neutrality and the restricting of willing communities to build out their own infra at the same time. I could intellectually entertain either option but never both simultaneously. For a political cohort whose brand has long included local self-determination and rural self-reliance, it's bizarre to me to see them take positions that don't even appear to be logically consistent. It's difficult to accept that they truly have the best interest of their constituents in mind.

[1] https://muninetworks.org/content/competition [2]. https://muninetworks.org/communitymap

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

#138
post #32

Maybe I'm lone dissenter, but I don't understand the push back on this. People who read hacker news should be among the elite technologist, do we really all believe that every packet should be treated the same? Should an E911 call or tele-surgery packets really be treated the same as Netflix? Net neutrality forces the ISP to do that and that seems like madness to me.

In the US ISPs have local monopolies / duopolies. They can litterally throttle what every they want without worrying about their customers.

You need regulation in markets like.

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

#139
post #32

Maybe I'm lone dissenter, but I don't understand the push back on this. People who read hacker news should be among the elite technologist, do we really all believe that every packet should be treated the same? Should an E911 call or tele-surgery packets really be treated the same as Netflix? Net neutrality forces the ISP to do that and that seems like madness to me.

"...'selfish routing' approach has a price of anarchy that’s a mere 4/3. That is, a free-for-all is only 33% worse than perfect top-down coordination." - Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions

So in effect these messages would only arrive 33% faster. Not to mention the cost of having to monitor traffic and the additional charge to do so on the consumer in comparison to the "anarchic" TCP model we have now.

The last time we bad this conversation when Verizon first sued for the rules to be dropped. Level 3 showed that the apparent need to create these fast lanes were due to an artificial bottleneck created by isps to throttle Netflix. When the new rules passed, the version that went in still allowed for these fast lanes to be created, but only through the supervision of the chairman. Whichb was a win for isms, despite the internet community cheering.

Also included I the original title 2 is that you would not have a data cap and yo u would be charged for the internet you use versus a bulk sum every month. Articles around this time showed that after subsidies and tax credits to build infrastructure. It took TWC only a $1.24 to supply a custoomer internet access in which they charged $49.99. This included all operating costs.

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

#140
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does your ISP have the ability to censor the internet for you? Do you watch Netflix? If you don't, that's ok, because most consumers do use it or a competing service. Internet Companies absolutely did try to charge Netflix extra, and in some cases throttled them. This was well documented. I don't know if you're a corporate shill or just genuinely lack the ability to comprehend how bad this is. Spectrum, Verizon and t…

Are you referring to the topic in this 2014 article refuting your claim about "internet companies" trying to charge Netflix extra? When in fact Netflix's own ISP, who Netflix rightly pays, was actually doing critically important network management. I am attentive to Net Neutrality arguments because I care about an open internet, but I have yet to hear one that doesn't betray a total lack of understanding of how the i…

Net Neutrality doesn't prevent QoS related management, but it does prevent per site throttling.

My ISP doesn't have a right to throttle streaming video content because they want to sell me a $90 cable package.

Post reply on HN