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

531–540 of 674 posts

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

#531

Post by bluetwo »

dmix wrote: post #361
shmerl wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

John Oliver found a good way to explain it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak The problem is that ISP shills that make these decisions don't care about public opposition. They aren't elected officials.

> The problem is that ISP shills that make these decisions don't care about public opposition But they do care most about making money from the public and no one has convinced me that filtering internet packages by website makes any technical, marketing, or business model sense at all. This has proven to be incredibly unpopular idea with the public for over a decade as well, whenever it has come up in the press. It w…

The ISPs definitely did do this up until the point they were classified as regulated. They just did it in subtle ways, seeing how far they could push it without causing a backlash. Like limiting Netflix and BitTorrent. Despite being careful, they got classified.

Now, they explicitly are going to be unclassified, and we, the consumers, will be unprotected.

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

#532

Post by chrischen »

sbov wrote: post #200
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…

Except Netflix doesn't care about net neutrality anymore - Reed Hastings claims they are now big and popular enough for it not to matter for them: https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-netflix-reed-hastin...

Or he's subtly pointing out that Netflix wouldn't have been started if it wasn't for net neutrality.

> It's an issue that would have been more important to "the Netflix of 10 years ago," he said.

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

#533

Post by scruple »

ams6110 wrote: post #34
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…

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.

> If Comcast is going to try to charge me more to be able to access Netflix, I'm gone.

This is what I don't understand. All of these businesses seem to be missing that point. Or, I am over-valuing it. Or something else that I don't understand or see. But, I have the exact same perspective and stance as you.

If I have to pay more to watch streaming video or play video games with my friends or download my Steam library or my Kindle titles, well, I'm very likely to just opt out of all of that. I am 36 years old and I have never once paid for a cable television subscription in the last 18 years that I've been on my own for _exactly_ this same reason. I am not going to pay for 3 separate and/or premium packages just to get access to the one piece of content that I actually want (sports programming).

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

#534

Post by webXL »

tbabb wrote: post #279

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

Buyer beware and you get what you pay for. Didn't your parents teach you that? No? How about your school? Hmmm... What did they teach?

Are they going to be able to filter facebook posts/ads "that conflict with Comcast's business or political interests" too? Out of youtube videos? Developing and maintaining that technology starts to get very expensive. If their political interests are really that nefarious, then I highly doubt they will be able to stay in business for very long. Why not address the real-world "nefarity" which is lobbying governments for special favors at the expense of the competition?

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

#535

Post by webXL »

shmerl wrote: post #521
webXL wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Competition surely can help, but currently there is no competition in a lot of places. Places with a lot of people? People who have been harmed by what NN is intending to fix? > Monopolists also created a lot of blockers that prevent increasing competition. Facilitated by government. If government was responsible in the first place, why not just undo what they did?

> Places with a lot of people? It doesn't depend on numbers. Depends mostly whether there is some other ISPs besides the coax provider (which are the most widespread).

So we should have a one-size-fits-all law? You're not that unimaginative, are you?

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

#536

Post by nikdaheratik »

ams6110 wrote: post #290
raarts wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But your ISP owns you. They will charge YouTube and Amazon as well. You'll end up paying $120/Mo for your connection again.

I won't, because it's not worth that to me. I pay nearly $100/mo now and the value is already borderline at that price. I guess others might feel it's worth more or that they have no choice.

So the policy change is a good idea because it won't affect you personally. In which case, why are you wasting our time since it doesn't affect you personally?

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

#537

Post by msla »

webXL wrote: post #535
shmerl wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Places with a lot of people? It doesn't depend on numbers. Depends mostly whether there is some other ISPs besides the coax provider (which are the most widespread).

So we should have a one-size-fits-all law? You're not that unimaginative, are you?

What specifically is wrong with one-size-fits-all?

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

#538

Post by nikdaheratik »

bcoates wrote: post #74
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…

Where I live, I like spectrum-formerly-timewarner-formerly-roadrunner cable Internet just fine. There are a lot of alternatives to using it for home Internet around here, and I'm pretty sure the two are related. If you want better internet access, instead of begging the FCC for scraps get on repealing legislated monopoly rights for kinds of wires and/or unbundling last mile from ISP. Then ask yourself why internet re…

I don't understand how you claim that these actions are exclusive. More alternatives for the consumer are good. Regulations preventing unnecessary charges for the consumer, directly or indirectly are also good. If you are happy with your Internet service under the current system, then why do you want to change anything?

More to the point, the people writing the regulations need to consider everyone in the U.S. not just the happiest Internet users. There already is a fairly large divide between people who can and can not access decent Internet service and this policy will only make that worse.

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

#539

Post by Velchronus »

marsrover wrote: post #494

The other day I was sitting at home with my family. My parents, two siblings and my grandma, who moved from Germany after WW2. My parents and siblings are sitting around talking about how Trump is going to save America. My brother mentions how a guy in town (also a Trump supporter) said he's a fascist. I'm sitting on the other side of the table and my grandma is looking down at her plate not saying anything. She's ab…

To give you my own anecdote, both my grandparents lived under fascism and both happily voted for Trump. It was the first time my grandfather voted in 40 years. I'd never seen him so excited to go to the voting booth before.

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

#540

Post by contravariant »

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…

I frankly don't see the point in allowing the creation of companies who's sole purpose it is to break net neutrality.
Post reply on HN