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

The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 206 posts

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#51

Post by sxates »

I'm paying 30% more each month to use a local ISP that's dedicated to Net Neutrality and online privacy (sonic.net) instead of Comcast/xfinity, because Comcast, along with the other large telecom companies, are actively undermining competitive markets, consumer freedom, and in a sense, our democracy.

An extra $20-30/month is a small price to pay to keep what little competition they have alive. I'd encourage everyone else to examine their choices here if they have any (which I realize for many is 'bad' or 'bad').

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#52

Post by zkms »

cakeface wrote: post #21

The sneakiest thing just happened to me on that Washington Post site. There was an overlay ad, no big deal, with an X to close it in the upper right of the screen. I moved my mouse up there to click the X and the site shifted slightly so what I actually clicked was "Subscribe"!

This is why I disable javascript on my laptop and block ads on my iphone. I shouldn't have to chase around advert-closing buttons that's jinking like a high-performance fighter aircraft.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#53

Post by splintercell »

outsidetheparty wrote: post #41
spott wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate: If they don't have overhead in their networks, they cannot offer faster service to some net traffic over other net traffic. The ability to sell faster connections to some services incentivises them to have overhead in their networks to sell, which means investment into their infrastructure.

Ah, but that only works if we keep net neutrality as is! With Pai's changes, why would they spend money improving their pipes to handle more traffic, when instead they can just throttle their competitors' traffic down to the point where their existing pipes are sufficient?

Because that can't make you more money. The only reason why doing that would make sense if you want to purposely do harm at the cost of making profits.

If UPS slows the packages of Amazon down because they're accepting money from Jet.com then they would be violating their consumer agreement with Amazon.

If UPS provides faster delivery for Jet.com for higher fee, then Amazon's products would be delivered slower but cheaper, but Jet.com's products would be more expensive.

Remember, speed isn't the only thing people care about on the Internet. Features and costs matter too.

In a non-net neutrality world, faster == expensive, and there is no business model for ISPs where they can provide cheaper services AND provide faster delivery.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#54

Post by anigbrowl »

ShameSpear wrote: post #10

I just feel hopeless. I don't think there's anything we can do at this point

Go on protest marches, meet people, consider going on strike. You have economic power, just develop the will and skill to use it in coordination with others. The objective of bullshit policies like this is to lower your morale as much as to change the strategic landscape. You'll discover that venting your anger is not draining but empowering.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#55

Post by ballenf »

js2 wrote: post #19

I just setup monthly donations to the EFF (I'm ashamed I didn't do so a long time ago), and you should too. Also don't forget to check if your employer will match your donations. https://supporters.eff.org/donate/

You can also choose them through the Amazon Smile program:

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/chpf/homepage/ref=smi_se_ssr_src...

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#56

Post by splintercell »

__jal wrote: post #15
outsidetheparty wrote: post #8

> Pai argued that rolling back the rules will encourage ISPs to spend more on their broadband networks How? How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? It's just so frustrating that these guys no longer even bother to pretend that their arguments make any logical sense at all. "We'll protect user privacy by eliminating these rules that pr…

He's just spewing bullshit to get past the decision becoming final. Engaging on a level of logic with someone who is seeking an outcome and just says whatever they think will support their view. This is about the exercise of power. And as has happened since Reagan, when the clownshow in office is finally shown the door, the D's get to clean up the mess, work towards fixing economy yet again, and the cycle of life is…

In past I've seen comments and incendiary language like this be given warning from the mods.

I come to this site because despite of being more liberal leaning, I can have calm conversations with people.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#57

Post by TearsInTheRain »

outsidetheparty wrote: post #8

> Pai argued that rolling back the rules will encourage ISPs to spend more on their broadband networks How? How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? It's just so frustrating that these guys no longer even bother to pretend that their arguments make any logical sense at all. "We'll protect user privacy by eliminating these rules that pr…

> We'll boost competition and choice, by giving the existing entrenched players more control and power!

Pai's position is that there is a healthy amount of competition in the isp space(he points to things like mobile competition and network development as evidence) and net neutrality is at best not needed and at worse harmful to innovation.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#58

Post by vijayr »

MS_Buys_Upvotes wrote: post #7
notadoc wrote: post #3

How, specifically, is this helpful to the consumer or to the internet in general?

It's not. Not to get too political but there are two groups: "the people" and "business". Watch every decision the current administration makes. It's helpful for "business" and hurts "the people". This is the opposite of what most people think it should be.

In the (very) short run, yes what you say makes sense. How does it make sense in the long run? "Business" can't exist without "the people", right? If I don't have money to buy shit then I can't be a good consumer, what are they going to sell to me then? Replace I with millions of people, then what?

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#59

Post by splintercell »

leereeves wrote: post #34
splintercell wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? The fundamental idea is that the amount of investment done in a venture is directly proportional to the profitability of that venture. If govt makes a regulation saying that Google can provide Hangouts service, but it cannot charge more for Enterprise Hangouts features, then Google has no addi…

Incentives to encourage competition do little good when regulations prevent competition. Even if there's a lot of money to be made providing better service than Comcast, who will receive approval to dig up the ground and place new cables?

> Incentives to encourage competition do little good when regulations prevent competition.

Well then why introduce more regulation like 'Net Neutrality'?

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#60

Post by grzm »

splintercell wrote: post #50
outsidetheparty wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's obvious. Business model 2 involves significant capital expenditure. Business model 1 involves the same profit without the risk; all they have to do is cut deals and act as rent-seekers on their existing infrastructure. They'd have to be fools to go for model 2.

You're not thinking it clearly. As long as you assume them to be profit seeking individuals and not some inconsistent model, then their choice leans far too heavily towards investing in their own infrastructure (even if you assume a bully who is ripping people's lunch money to invest some of that lunch money into a gym membership). If they launch Verizon Music, then they'll have to build a service as good as Spotify…

> You're not thinking it clearly.

Your useful comment reads just as well without this. While you may think they're not thinking clearly, stating so is unlikely to convince them of your argument.

Post reply on HN