Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

671–674 of 674 posts

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

#671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I assume your building owner doesn't want you to install a new fibre? saying will sell you a 1gbit service for $1600pcm in midtown. How much are you willing to pay and for what?

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

#672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the current net neutrality debate is that it seems to stop at layer 3 of the ISO stack. There's no reason why we should have dozens of incompatible video calling apps, why media streaming only works with a particular vendor's application. Not to mention that many of the big players in silicon valley like to jump back and forth over the line of "is a provider" / "is not a provider". Twitter and Google…

I remember having to explain to my younger sibling that "yes, you can send an email to a Yahoo address from your Gmail account. No, seriously, try it, I am not kidding." They are much younger than I am and they grew up in a world of walled gardens. To them, that's just the way things are and have always been. It's a shame.

i've had similar instances, but it was solely because many kids nowadays have no idea that there is a such a thing as email that is not "Gmail." Google has done such a sneaky job of spreading into education that kids know nothing that isn't Google. They know Google Drive, YouTube, Gmail, Chrome, and are confused when something else is in front of them.

Google has become the walled garden that they pretend they aren't.

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

#673
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…

> This would be a boon to any ISP who DIDN'T do this. Competition, and obvious lack of business sense, has always been a far larger counter-balance to this idea. Where I'm at, it's Comcast or nothing. Most of the US does not have any ISP competition. It's usually 1 ISP to choose from, or if you're lucky, 1 ISP with expected speeds and 1 ISP over DSL. I really wish I lived somewhere with multiple options, because if a…

sad that they point at HughesNet or something equally awful as "competition" too. :/

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

#674
post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very true. Rural folks have it worst: monopoly or no access at all. If a company like Sinclair also owned the broadband, only payola TV would work, YouTube access and bandwidth could a tiered add-on, they’d block whichever company didn’t pay the extortion protection money with no means of recourse. Also, for everyone, billing would become more complexified, obscured to extract more money from consumers and thwart cos…

Don't people have access to 4G? I live in a tiny village (1000 people) and have 40/6 home Internet via 4G that I pay less than $10/mo with a 200 GB data cap that you can prepay $5 for 100 gb more if you spend it. I'm not from the U.S. though.

That sounds nice. I pay $75 a month for 10/1. LTE is higher speed, but significantly more expensive because of data caps.
Post reply on HN