FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by api » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:40 PM UTC

ChicagoDave wrote: post #69

It's unlikely popular and profitable services will be hindered by the lack of net neutrality. But any new services that threaten existing ones will be hard-pressed to compete. Imagine I start a new streaming service. In order for my service to reach people, ISP's will charge me a higher price than Netflix, probably a _significantly_ higher rate. This will make it extremely difficult for my new service to reach enough…

Don't forget about the cloud oligopolies...

"Amazon EC2 and S3 now include prioritized traffic to the network edge through Amazon's deals with over a hundred local and regional ISPs. Just add traffic priority to any elastic IP or S3 bucket and for only $0.04/gb outgoing your traffic will take the fast lane to your customers!"

How will Digital Ocean, Vultr, ARP Networks, Linode, etc. compete with that?

What we're seeing here is the closing of the digital frontier.

That being said my personal preference is not for net neutrality but for changes to state and local regulation to allow for a lot more ISP competition. But due to the patchwork nature of state and local regs that's a brutal slog in the trenches. So we need net neutrality in lieu of more ISP competition. Either that or we need to somehow overrule state and local regs at the Federal level to allow municipal and small startup broadband. That's tough given the fact that the Fed doesn't necessarily have any authority there. They'd have to argue it's interstate commerce.

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

#272

Post by Samis2001 » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:41 PM UTC

orthecreedence wrote: post #229

SimonPStevens wrote: post #122

Question for HN... As a non-american, what can I do to help you? I'm from the UK, and I'm fairly worried that if this happens in the US, we'll be next. I obviously don't have a US representative to call. Is there anything I can do to support the net neutrality fight? (Will donate to EFF if I can think of nothing better)

Net Neutrality being repealed is a symptom of the telecoms owning all the infrastructure. I'm not sure how things work in the UK, but if you guys have publicly-owned/municipal internet infrastructure, then I wouldn't worry about Net Neutrality. If your infrastructure is owned by a few big companies like in the US, then my recommendation would be to start fighting for public control. As far as helping people in the US…

It's not publicly owned but the market is way less dysfunctional than in the US - aside from the few fiber & cable ISPs, a single phone line allows you to choose from a reasonably broad selection of ISPs.

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

#273

Post by Delmania » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:42 PM UTC

mediocrejoker wrote: post #201

imglorp wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's unlikely popular and profitable services will be hindered by the lack of net neutrality. Huh? Did you forget already that both Verizon and Comcast throttled services like Netflix? They both argued they should get a cut if they were going to carry the traffic to their customers. Now they're getting exactly what they wanted. 1. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/veriz... 2. https://consumeris…

What is the actual reason they shouldn't? This is a highly politicized topic but it's hard to find rational discussion. If I built a network I would expect to be able to charge whatever I wanted to whomever I wanted in exchange for the use of my network. Is the answer that taxpayers helped fund the network so now feel they deserve not to pay twice? How much of the current internet infrastructure is paid for by taxpay…

> What is the actual reason they shouldn't?

In many areas of the United States, there is only one ISP available. Part of this is due to the high cost of entry, but the ISPs also have a past filled with rather shady activity. Verizon was given federal money to expand their network, did a fraction of the work, and then used their influence to pocket the rest. Comcast will throw lawsuits at new ISPs in order to bankrupt them.

Because of this the ISPs already use their monopoly position to take as much money as possible via data caps and bandwidth. I believe Comcast is on record as saying data caps aren't needed, but no one can stop them. The reality is ISPs are some of the most greedy, unethical companies around that exploit their monopoly position for their bottom line. Either regulation needs to be in place or the government needs to incentivize and protect new ISPs.

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

#274

Post by komali2 » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:42 PM UTC

rubicon33 wrote: post #166

fokinsean wrote: post #18

Tweet in article: >On December 14, the FCC will vote on Chairman Pai's plan to repeal President Obama's heavy-handed Internet regulations and restore Internet freedom. I love how these laws are veiled with patriotic sentiments, e.g. "Internet Freedom". Just like the "Patriot Act", it is reasonable to assume anything with these sort of labels will likely be an encroachment on your freedoms. Also >"The job of the FCC i…

> "If you like your cable company" I've never once, in my entire life, heard anyone say they like Comcast.

As a petty exercise in malicious revenge, I would call Comcast support on my morning commute, every day, for about a month. It started out because I had a legitimate issue with speed and I decided to just call until my speeds were what I was paying for (not that I ever expected to get them). It turns out my region was always routed to the same office somewhere in India. So I guess I became kind of a known entity there (I'm always polite on the phone) and towards the end they would just route me to this same guy who was a newbie and I guess they wanted to help him get his call count up / get practice on the phone?

Long story short there's one person I like at Comcast, his name is Dev, hope you're doing well Dev, you made my commutes fun.

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

#275

Post by mediocrejoker » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:43 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #233

mediocrejoker wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the actual reason they shouldn't? This is a highly politicized topic but it's hard to find rational discussion. If I built a network I would expect to be able to charge whatever I wanted to whomever I wanted in exchange for the use of my network. Is the answer that taxpayers helped fund the network so now feel they deserve not to pay twice? How much of the current internet infrastructure is paid for by taxpay…

These ISP companies use legal shenanigans, coupled with the unavoidably large startup costs of creating a new/competing ISP, to effectively run regional monopolies. Google kind of gave up their master plan for Fiber after they were litigated in multiple jurisdictions essentially over bullshit that they were legally within their right to do, such as use shared lines - and that was Google, which had a ton of cash to th…

Thanks for the detailed reply.

It seems like a lot of the disagreement hinges on the fact that ISPs have a monopoly and many people cannot easily "vote with their wallet" if the ISP does something they don't like. I wonder if focusing on making it easier for competitive ISPs to start up would do more towards bridging the gap between the two sides.

I think a lot of the anti-NN crowd is based on a more philosophical argument, that if the ISP built the infrastructure then they own it and they should be able to charge $1 million per day for access if they want (they would obviously not do that because nobody would pay it)

I wonder what is the biggest impediment to setting up a legitimately competitive ISP? Presumably the (ostensibly wasteful) cost of duplicating the last-mile infrastructure?

As an aside, do you have more info on the legal challenges to google fiber?

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

#276

Post by nathan_long » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:43 PM UTC

mediocrejoker wrote: post #201

imglorp wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's unlikely popular and profitable services will be hindered by the lack of net neutrality. Huh? Did you forget already that both Verizon and Comcast throttled services like Netflix? They both argued they should get a cut if they were going to carry the traffic to their customers. Now they're getting exactly what they wanted. 1. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/veriz... 2. https://consumeris…

What is the actual reason they shouldn't? This is a highly politicized topic but it's hard to find rational discussion. If I built a network I would expect to be able to charge whatever I wanted to whomever I wanted in exchange for the use of my network. Is the answer that taxpayers helped fund the network so now feel they deserve not to pay twice? How much of the current internet infrastructure is paid for by taxpay…

> What is the actual reason they shouldn't?

Imagine there's no Netflix yet. People are using the web, and ISPs are selling tiny-bandwidth plans. Along comes a streaming movie service and people love it.

All of a sudden, ISP customers are saying "I want more bandwidth and I'll pay more for it."

Can the ISP say, with a straight face, that Netflix is costing them money?

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

#277

Post by lovehashbrowns » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:43 PM UTC

dinoleif wrote: post #124

charonn0 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Switch to another internet provider. That's not an option for most Americans, and part of the reason why net neutrality is necessary.

This is plainly false. Most households have multiple internet providers.

Phew! That's so true. Before Google Fiber came to my apartment complex, I only had Time Warner if I wanted broadband internet. The option aside from that was 56k or satellite. So many options.

In Chicago, I had Comcast and AT&T DSL. Neither was very fast, and Comcast was really expensive (something like $90+ if I wanted decent speeds). Again, very fortunate of me. I chose to go with AT&T because I was a poor college student. Trying to watch Youtube on that was a complete nightmare. I was also very unlucky if one of my online courses required watching an instructional video or a lecture.

So many options! Expensive and slow internet vs. cheap and really crappy internet. Both with data caps, awful customer service, constant connection issues, expensive+aging equipment--gee wiz we're so lucky.

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

#278

Post by eco » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:45 PM UTC

fokinsean wrote: post #18

Tweet in article: >On December 14, the FCC will vote on Chairman Pai's plan to repeal President Obama's heavy-handed Internet regulations and restore Internet freedom. I love how these laws are veiled with patriotic sentiments, e.g. "Internet Freedom". Just like the "Patriot Act", it is reasonable to assume anything with these sort of labels will likely be an encroachment on your freedoms. Also >"The job of the FCC i…

The way you've written this is implying that Pai said that line but it was actually a sarcastic Former Chairman Wheeler and the quote has since been edited out. The Chicago Tribune still has it though.

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

#279

Post by tbabb » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:45 PM UTC

Picture this: The "Google Search" package with Comcast is $8/month. Or, you can get "Comcast Search" for free! Comcast search is shitty and conveniently doesn't "find" results that conflict with Comcast's business or political interests.

But hey! The free market and invisible hand will sort everything out! /s

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

#280

Post by nickysielicki » Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 6:46 PM UTC

acetheface wrote: post #196

Spivak wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This dispute is way more nuanced than you're presenting. The article you posted picks a winner pretty early on bit actually presents the situation pretty well. Any company Netflix buys transit from ends up using up all the goodwill of settlement-free peering agreements, doesn't want to actually pay for the traffic, tries to route around problem, and then gets frustrated when Comcast doesn't let them.

As a consumer Im paying Comcast for quality access to all of the internet. Its their job to deliver on that. If they allow their peering points with T1 providers to clog up, they are not delivering on the service I purchased. Also, Comcast isn't a transit provider. They're an eyeball network and should expect heavy inbound traffic levels. Also look here: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/822 Their locations are all in th…

> If they allow their peering points with T1 providers to clog up, they are not delivering on the service I purchased.

IIRC, the proposed net neutrality regulations would not change this scenario at all. The issue is the absolute leverage that would need to be granted in these agreements for this to be true.

In this hypothetically net neutral universe, what should happen when those peering points clog up? Comcast absolutely has to upgrade those links, regardless of price? Would not upgrading these links be throttling? Would they be obligated to renegotiate their peering agreements or risk fines?

If so, I've got a killer startup idea. I'll get a modest peering agreement with comcast, then turn around and sell bandwidth to Netflix and Google for pennies on the dollar, and then turn around again and tell comcast that they have to renegotiate with me, at whatever price I want, or I'll get the FCC to bring them down. Then what? They're the ones in violation of the law, not me.

In practice, the proposed net neutrality regulations loosely say that the FCC can come in and act as a mediator in pricing agreements, when one party is (paraphrasing) "acting unfairly", which is a whole 'nother can of worms. For starters, it's completely out of whack with the intended scope of the FCC.

edit:

> As a consumer Im paying Comcast for quality access to all of the internet. Its their job to deliver on that.

No, you're not, and you never were, and it's bordering on dishonesty to make this claim. At best, you're paying comcast for the same quality access to anything that can reach their network at that same quality. Even that is arguable.