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

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 674 posts

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

#371

Post by goialoq »

pmoriarty wrote: post #85
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…

">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." Freedom for whom?

Freedom for whoever has the cable/phone monopoly right-of-way.

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

#372

Post by rhino369 »

busterarm wrote: post #37

Used to work for a local ISP (ILEC). "Deregulation" isn't a real thing until they remove the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) and competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) regional monopolies enforced by law. Until that happens, all this does is screw consumers. Honestly, internet service needs to be declared a public utility.

Why? The biggest ISPs in most markets aren't ILECs or CLECs right?

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

#374

Post by wu-ikkyu »

niftich wrote: post #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…

>it's bizarre to me to see them take positions that don't even appear to be logically consistent.

Ever consider that maybe they are more beholden to those who give them money than those who give them votes?

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

#375

Post by dmix »

jrs235 wrote: post #366

Wow. If my cable company (who I use only for internet access) decides to change pricing and it ends up costing me more to watch netflix (this includes if netflix increases its prices due to the cable company pushing back and charging netflix) then I will cancel both. I'll save more money and be free from the internet at home. I suppose that really is truly "Internet Freedom"!

> then I will cancel both.

Which is exactly why it won't happen even if they were given the option... Everyone would flock to the ISPs who didn't do this. Or to technology options such as encryption and VPNs to circumvent it, while still using the cheaper packages.

Selective internet packages has been an incredibly unpopular idea among the public and has been for over a decade.

I'm not sure why people think the only thing that has held ISPs back from doing this is a 3yr old FTC regulation. Not to mention no ISP in any other country has tried it either in the ~2+ decades broadband has been available.

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

#376

Post by matt4077 »

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…

The problem is that the price you (as the ISP) choose to charge some new startup is not subject to competition.

That's because you're not charging your customers. You're selling them to that startup. The startup has no choice but to pay if they want to have a chance of reaching these potential customers.

That means ISPs will have to ability to milk every cent of value generated out of startups, limited only by their ability to measure it.

The normal mechanisms of a market don't kick in, because the customers will be unaware of what's happening. They're not going to change providers only because that provider is shaking down some startup they've never heard of.

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

#377

Post by goialoq »

niftich wrote: post #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…

Right, repealing net neutrality would only make sense if we keep net neutrality

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

#378

Post by vast_majority »

rhino369 wrote: post #263
vast_majority wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The vast majority have some choice" I challenge this assertion -> please document it.

60% of the country has three providers of 10mpbs+ 90% has two providers of 10mpbs+. One of those is satellite, which sort of sucks, I'll grant you that. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br...

Thanks. I've lived in the north east since before there was IPSs and have never had a choice having lived in several town. Only people in one or two cities near me do. I'd agree satellite isn't a great choice and I am not really counting that (or dialup if it still exists). But is choosing between a telco like Verizon and Comcast/Charter really much of a choice either? So I think those numbers are miss leading. There doesn't feel like any choice to me.

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

#379

Post by mring33621 »

guiambros wrote: post #307
nathan_long wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument that Netflix needs to pay Comcast is absurd. Why are people buying high-bandwidth plans from ISPs? Because they want to use services like Netflix . Netflix is not costing ISPs money, it's giving them something to sell . Imagine that taxi drivers want to charge the airport for overwhelming them with passengers and you'll see the absurdity.

> The argument that Netflix needs to pay Comcast is absurd. Absurd for you, not for the carriers. And, unfortunately, they are the ones dealing the cards now. Outrageous, for sure, but according to Chairman Pai's plan, carriers will be able to charge both consumers and content providers.

That's fine. If the charges are onerous enough, then the content providers may choose to build new carriers of their own.

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

#380

Post by IronWolve »

m00g00 wrote: post #289
api wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good way to get the right wingers might be to ask them what happens when their ISP blocks "hate speech" (as they or someone else defines it) or political speech that falls far outside well established political views. This is actually pretty likely to happen. Of course I suppose it'll be kind of funny to see God Emperor Trump usher in policies that make things like Gab and Voat unreachable. Top Kek!

Problem is the blocking of politically unpopular speech is already happening, just by the major gatekeepers of social media, Facebook, Google, Twitter etc. instead of ISP's. In fact many of the same people advocating for NN are also cheering on major tech companies censorship policies (while the tech companies still insist that they are Common Carriers and thus not liable for user posted content). So why would right…

The right sees an unregulated approach and naive of the censorship aspects.

But Net Neutrality doesn't fix the censorship of companies refusing services to people it doesn't like. In fact many people praise such censorship.

The proposed Net Neutrality argument is just consumer access to the net, not the person wanting to be a host on the Net. That aspect, it doesn't go far enough to provide an unregulated and uncensored free speech.

Post reply on HN