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

661–670 of 674 posts

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

#661

Post by wils1245 »

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

This is an extremely ironic example. Google controls what content you see more than any ISP ever will, with or without net neutrality.

If anything, this FCC change will cement Google's dominance. They'll pay some rent to ISPs to maintain their priority lane, something an incumbent won't be able to do.

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

#662

Post by wils1245 »

bluetidepro wrote: post #159

What I don't fully understand is why isn't larger tech companies like Facebook, Netflix, Google, Twitter, Amazon, etc. making a big fuss about this on their sites to warn their users and help fight against it? Are they not as worried about this? Does it actual benefit them in some ways cause they can box out smaller competition since they can afford to pay ISP's or something? For example, if Facebook saw this as a re…

They already control the internet. The end of ISP net neutrality isn't about displacing the incumbents, it's about charging the incumbents rent to help maintain their position. This, along with anything else that they can afford that startups can't, helps them massively.

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

#663

Post by rhino369 »

busterarm wrote: post #495
rhino369 wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Untrue. In any US market, for each class of service (copper, coax and now fiber) there's rarely ever more than one of each because the big ISPs do not compete with each other in such fashion. Muni service is a huge threat to them for this reason.

The Coax providers (i.e., cable company) aren't ILECs though.

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

#664

Post by JohnTHaller »

isostatic wrote: post #635
JohnTHaller wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of Americans can't choose their broadband internet service provider. I live in NYC and have access to exactly one broadband provider. You don't think they'll come up with any reason they can to make up new service levels and add-ons to pad my bill?

You have no 4G in NY?

You could get Verizon's connected home 4G service. It's $60 for 10GB. That would let you watch 3 movies on Netflix.

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

#665

Post by jstarfish »

unclesaamm wrote: post #457
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…

> This is just another nail in the oligarchy coffin we are actively sealing ourselves in. Or rather, that we're being sealed into, since this can hardly be called democracy.

This administration was voluntarily voted in.

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

#666

Post by busterarm »

rhino369 wrote: post #663
busterarm wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Untrue. In any US market, for each class of service (copper, coax and now fiber) there's rarely ever more than one of each because the big ISPs do not compete with each other in such fashion. Muni service is a huge threat to them for this reason.

The Coax providers (i.e., cable company) aren't ILECs though.

But the coax providers still make deals between each other where they effectively follow the same rules leaving almost every market having one incumbent provider and one other competitor.

There are tiny competitors that work in this space (cough RCN, Charter) but they are functionally irrelevant (except for a few big markets for Charter) and most of them have gone out of business and consolidated to larger providers anyway.

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

#667

Post by CamperBob2 »

rtx wrote: post #628
CamperBob2 wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because YC doesn't take government subsidies to act as a dumb pipe. They also aren't a de-facto monopoly in any way, shape, or form. All of the incumbent ISPs are charged with stewardship of public resources to one extent or another, if only because they require right-of-way access. The fact that many Americans have a grand total of one decent broadband provider to choose from is another factor that has to be con…

If wires are public resources the government should buy it outright instead of giving subsidies. Public resources should be publically owned.

Perhaps. That's not what's being debated, though.

And it's not so much the wires, as the land the wires have to traverse. These areas are largely public rights-of-way already.

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

#668

Post by arcbyte »

vorpalhex wrote: post #140
arcbyte wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you referring to the topic in this 2014 article refuting your claim about "internet companies" trying to charge Netflix extra? When in fact Netflix's own ISP, who Netflix rightly pays, was actually doing critically important network management. I am attentive to Net Neutrality arguments because I care about an open internet, but I have yet to hear one that doesn't betray a total lack of understanding of how the i…

Net Neutrality doesn't prevent QoS related management, but it does prevent per site throttling. My ISP doesn't have a right to throttle streaming video content because they want to sell me a $90 cable package.

Throttling is or can be indistinguishable from QoS management.

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

#669

Post by dmix »

milofeynman wrote: post #412
dmix wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I see your profile says "data scientist in training" I would love for you to use some of your training to supply your post with actual data or sources. Everything I see reported disagrees with so many of your assumptions. Like your unstated assumption of some sort of fair and competitive market where they will lose money if they don't treat their customers right. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06…

Here's some data for you: no home/business ISP in any country in the last two decades has offered anything like what is being proposed in in the headline (TV style throttled internet packages based on the website).

The only time this has ever been done is in countries like Portugal to offer cheaper internet on limited mobile phone connections to people only who want Facebook/Twitter/etc for $5/m instead of a full internet connection for $20-30/m (typically also far cheaper than the US). It has never been tried to limit primary ISP internet connections.

Data requires actual numbers. I've repeatedly said in my comments I believe we should regulate things companies have done that are provably bad. Not hand wavy hypothetical things that sound like a terrible idea for any company to try.

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

#670

Post by mirimir »

ams6110 wrote: post #55
mirimir wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom for ISPs, right? And for enterprises to buy preferential connectivity. For the rest of us, not so much :(

You will be free to accept the ISPs offered plan(s), or not.

That'd be cool, if there were competition. Which there isn't, in most of the US.
Post reply on HN