F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules • Hacker News Board

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#571

Post by spsful » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 8:43 PM UTC

JohnTHaller wrote: post #436

komali2 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking this over for the past couple months, because I was pretty sure this would be the outcome - that we would lose our net neutrality protection. So let's play out the worse case - Comcast, AT&T etc wait out the shitstorm and then start throttling traffic and packaging the internet, releasing cable-esque "plans." Is it feasible to just start running our own fiber to hubs? I want to learn more about the…

No, it isn't. I live in NYC. I have access to exactly one broadband provider. So, if Spectrum starts blocking Vonage because they want you to pay for their VoIP instead (ISPs in the US have done this in the past), I'll have to drop Vonage and use Spectrum's VoIP. Repeat for blocking P2P, Google Wallet, Facetime, Netflix, etc (all of which have previous incidents in the US).

I'm definitely not going to be that guy who says his ISP is the exception, but Spectrum, basically the evolution of Time Warner Cable, hasn't even dabbled in paid prioritization. Time Warner Cable didn't start fiddling with fast and slow lanes when Comcast tried it and never put out any such policy. That's why I liked living in a TWC city and not a Comcast city (ever noticed there are barely any cities that have both TWC and Comcast? That's intentional)

However, I will say that the management of TWC left once Charter completed the purchase, and as such they might start new prioritization policies and anti-net neutrality stuff. But from what I've seen, Spectrum doesn't seem to be publicly expressing interest in that stuff. Unless I see it in a policy change on their website I won't be concerned. (Okay now time for the part where I tell you that I am completely for net neutrality and think that Ajit Pai is a piece of excrement for gutting net neutrality laws because judging from how I worded my message it probably seemed like I supported the repeal. In short, screw Ajit Pai.)

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#572

Post by dang » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 8:44 PM UTC

SauciestGNU wrote: post #442

dang wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't turn HN threads into partisan fights. That leads to information heat death, something we're all here to avoid. This topic is already highly partisan, of course, so it's all the more important not to make it more so. This is very much a collective responsibility.

Yes I tried to mitigate that in my child comment. It is, as you mentioned, a highly partisan matter though and has been beaten to death on this forum and others. I don't know how else to approach the subject when there is such clear malfeasance coming from one side of the debate. Perhaps "not at all" would be the correct choice.

Maybe, or maybe there's a different way to do it if you're patient enough to wait for a new idea. I know how hard that is; I deal with it every day myself.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#573

Post by test6554 » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 8:44 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #210

juris wrote: post #135

This wouldn't be a problem if ISP's weren't de facto monopolies. If there was competition in this space, then there would be incentive to improve the infrastructure and Internet speeds. However, ISP's kill competition by making legal arrangements with local governments to only do business with them, and by cutting competitors' cables. Since we have no way to guarantee reasonable speeds to small time websites now, we…

The "last mile" is a utility, and by its very nature will always result in monopolistic control. It is impractical and irrational to wire up a home to multiple ISPs with their own fiber channels. Each channel could cost tens of thousands to install. Instead the "last mile" should be a non-profit funded by ISPs who lease the channels. The non-profit is responsible for installing the "last mile," upgrading it, and repa…

How much money are we talking for a mile of fiber? $6K for materials and $12K for labor? Anything else? Could you do a neighborhood for $18K?

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#574

Post by mozumder » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 8:45 PM UTC

juris wrote: post #135

This wouldn't be a problem if ISP's weren't de facto monopolies. If there was competition in this space, then there would be incentive to improve the infrastructure and Internet speeds. However, ISP's kill competition by making legal arrangements with local governments to only do business with them, and by cutting competitors' cables. Since we have no way to guarantee reasonable speeds to small time websites now, we…

The reason ISPs are monopolies is because if they were unregulated, you'd have a thousand phone lines outside of everyone's house, from every single private phone network provider. You'd have a bunch of phones in everyone's houses, one for each network.

This is what it looked like before the FCC: https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--FfVBroP...

An unregulated ISP market is a safety hazard and ugly. Because of these issues, government eventually decided that only one phone company can serve each house, forcing a monopoly situation because of that. But that monopoly has to allow every other network access to that line so that callers can call anywhere. This is the origin of net neutrality.

You're never going to go back to the situation where you have a thousand different lines to everyone's houses, so you're better off regulating them properly with net neutrality.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#575

Post by equalunique » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 8:45 PM UTC

juris wrote: post #135

This wouldn't be a problem if ISP's weren't de facto monopolies. If there was competition in this space, then there would be incentive to improve the infrastructure and Internet speeds. However, ISP's kill competition by making legal arrangements with local governments to only do business with them, and by cutting competitors' cables. Since we have no way to guarantee reasonable speeds to small time websites now, we…

I agree with this point of view.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#576

Post by spsful » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 8:46 PM UTC

gerbilly wrote: post #568

juris wrote: post #135

This wouldn't be a problem if ISP's weren't de facto monopolies. If there was competition in this space, then there would be incentive to improve the infrastructure and Internet speeds. However, ISP's kill competition by making legal arrangements with local governments to only do business with them, and by cutting competitors' cables. Since we have no way to guarantee reasonable speeds to small time websites now, we…

> This wouldn't be a problem if ISP's weren't de facto monopolies. And even if they weren't monopolies, they would probably collude. Telcos in some countries, for example agree to not market services in each other's territories.

Comcast and TWC did that literally all the time. I can't back this up with a specific website link, but I have anecdotal evidence. When they tried to merge a couple of years ago a Comcast exec said in one interview that the move wouldn't affect consumers and isn't something intended to incite "anticompetitive" behavior because TWC and Comcast already do not compete. Ever noticed how a city is EITHER a Comcast or TWC city, and not both?

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#577

Post by carry_bit » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 8:46 PM UTC

thadjo wrote: post #506

Someone1234 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "last mile" is a utility, and by its very nature will always result in monopolistic control. It is impractical and irrational to wire up a home to multiple ISPs with their own fiber channels. Each channel could cost tens of thousands to install. Instead the "last mile" should be a non-profit funded by ISPs who lease the channels. The non-profit is responsible for installing the "last mile," upgrading it, and repa…

> The "last mile" is a utility, and by its very nature will always result in monopolistic control. This is THE central point. Everyone saying that they would be OK with the latest FCC regs if there were only more competition need to consider this. In what bizarro world would anyone actually want ISPs competing for the last mile?

If you last mile is minimally-maintained aging copper far from the central office, and the competition is fiber...

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#578

Post by okreallywtf » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 8:47 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #28

This has been asked a few times but never fully answered, can someone explain why this vote in particular is a problem? I understand net neutrality and I am all for it, but there was considerable public doubt before reclassification that this was the proper way to go about it. It also doesn't seem like the internet regulatory state of pre-2015 was a disaster. Would we better off focusing our efforts on increasing com…

Don't forget that ISP's have been buying up media companies and vice versa, this hasn't always been the case. We now have a situation where huge amounts of media have moved from traditional networks (cable, UHF, satellite etc) to the internet. This makes it incredibly appetizing to own the networks being used and offers a huge financial incentive to prioritize your own goods over others.

Factor in the way that corporations have been operating over the last decades (shareholder value is the number 1 priority) and you really do have a recipe for disaster for the consumer and small businesses.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#579

Post by equalunique » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 8:48 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #457

komali2 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking this over for the past couple months, because I was pretty sure this would be the outcome - that we would lose our net neutrality protection. So let's play out the worse case - Comcast, AT&T etc wait out the shitstorm and then start throttling traffic and packaging the internet, releasing cable-esque "plans." Is it feasible to just start running our own fiber to hubs? I want to learn more about the…

> As a private citizen, can I (snip) just lay a super long fiber cable straight to (the internet). Yes. I worked on a startup ISP for a few years, which attempted to do this. It's actually really easy to do : 1) Pick a point where you can get connection to the internet. (Backhaul). This is usually a phone companies central office, but it can also be at a data centre or other point of presence. 2) Run fiber cable from…

"Some cities / municipalities have signed agreements for monopoly rights to a telephone or cable provider. Many (but not all) of them can be worked around by simply not selling telephone or TV service."

Isn't it ironic that the only way for a startup ISP to get around the local monopoly agreement is to not provide services which are regulated by the FCC?

Yet somehow, Google, Amazon, and Facebook have convinced most young people that FCC regulation of ISPs is a good idea.

The sad part is, the only thing between a mass of young voters and 1984-style internet is just 3 more years of Trump/Pai, who most of them hate. Hopefully the FTC's renewed authority over "information service" can be demonstrated for the virtue it is before it's too late.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#580

Post by okreallywtf » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 8:48 PM UTC

ABCLAW wrote: post #331

slg wrote: post #28

This has been asked a few times but never fully answered, can someone explain why this vote in particular is a problem? I understand net neutrality and I am all for it, but there was considerable public doubt before reclassification that this was the proper way to go about it. It also doesn't seem like the internet regulatory state of pre-2015 was a disaster. Would we better off focusing our efforts on increasing com…

Pre 2015, the FCC was enforcing NN through other means. In late 2014, a court case declared the method they were enforcing didn't fall under the scope of their powers, but strongly suggested, while noting that the ISPs could and would be a danger to the internet if left to their own devices, that they had other means to enact the same regulations. The other means was Title II classification.

What exactly were the other methods so that we all know?