6 ms·

I thought this "cut off your internet" thing had died circa 2007 with the draconian, yet endearingly-condescending "three-strikes-you're-out" push from the reco

I thought this "cut off your internet" thing had died circa 2007 with the draconian, yet endearingly-condescending "three-strikes-you're-out" push from the record industry. In a world where internet access has long since become a basic requirement to function in civil society, how is this still a conversation?

wmf 10y ago
You can just switch to another ISP!
- ahoy 10y ago
  I literally can't switch. I live in one of the biggest cities in the world, and the ISP's here have carved it up into neighborhood level monopolies. I have one option.
  - mi100hael 10y ago
    That's the joke. The vast majority of the US has either 0 or 1 option for 5+ Mbps internet, and 1-5 options for dial-up/DSL.
    - seanp2k2 10y ago
      Exactly. I can get Comcast up to I think 200mbit now (I have 100) or ATT DSL which would require paying for a phone line + the service which would cost the same as Comcast and run at 768k. This is in Silicon Valley. My apartment building doesn't give me any other options (and Comcast is the only "official" one, but ATT claims they can offer me service...never tried).
      - dublinben 10y ago
        The FCC defines a broadband connection as at least 25/3. [0] That AT&T DSL doesn't even qualify as broadband any more, not that it should. [0] http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chairman-mocks-industry-claims-that-customers-dont-need-faster-internet/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chairman-mocks-i...
        vacri 10y ago
        Having lived through the dial-up modem -> ADSL era, I think that 25/3 too high a bar to call 'broadband'. There was a definite qualitative jump from dial-up to ADSL1, and the qualitative difference between ADSL1 and faster speeds is much less noticeable. Definitely present, but less noticeable. Perhaps another way of putting how I see it - excluding really heavy traffic like video or (cough) torrenting linux isos (cough), you're rarely saturating your broadband bandwidth with casual internet use. Whereas with dial-up/non-broadband, it didn't matter what you did, you were saturating your bandwidth and always waiting. (YMMV - this is just how I see the term 'broadband' as a qualitative label)
        dmitrygr 10y ago
        Clearly you haven't seen modern websites. The bozos who write them produce blank pages that weigh in at 1MB, and god help you if you want some text there...you'll be downloading 3000 javascript frameworks, 200-300 web fonts, and of course some icon fonts too... oh, and ads..
        vacri 10y ago
        Not all websites are like that, though yes you're right more often than not.
        georgemcbay 10y ago
        I agree that modern websites too often tend towards being bloated messes, but I also agree with vacri's idea that for most uses the jump between dialup and ADSL1 feels much more substantial than further increases. After a certain point the thing rate limiting you for most network usages (including web browsing) stops being your own connection to the ISP and starts being other things, like the speed of the website you are visiting under whatever load it is currently under, the website's own bandwidth out to the greater world (split up among however many people use it), etc. I currently have 300/20 service, and though I see a nice set of numbers when I visit speed testing sites, in typical real world web browsing situations it feels no faster than the old 30/5 service I had before this.
  - bb101 10y ago
    I much prefer the UK model. BT Openreach wire up the infrastructure and take care of the telephone exchanges, and then ISPs compete to provide their services on the lines. To be fair, they have been slow rolling out fibre into rural areas, but most exchanges now have a choice of 10+ ISPs for prices equivalent to $25 a month. Why aren't you all protesting about being tied into such oligopolies? America is supposed to be about free markets and open choice.
    - cmurf 10y ago
      Key words "supposed to be" but in reality there's at least as much regulation creation at the behest of corporate lobby as a barrier to entry against competitors. And notice how the median reliability and performance of the big three is worse than in countries where internet access is treated more like a public utility. But that's basically what they are, they're natural monopolies but are in some ways more heavily regulated as if they were competitive businesses where anti-competition law would be easier to execute. Notice wherever Google Fiber tries to move in how much better service and performance gets while at the same time the local one or two choices step over themselves in outrage. If the music industry were saying "punish them! turn off their water!" people would probably better understand just exactly how vindictive they're trying to be.
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      > Why aren't you all protesting about being tied into such oligopolies? To be fair, you've just replaced a oligopoly with a monopoly. Openreach is a government-controlled monopoly, but US telecom is heavily regulated too. Both charge what the government lets them. As you point out, rural support is a lot less if no one can recoupe infrastructure expenses. The UK has 5x the population density of the US. So...you might be right, but it's not a clear-cut answer from basic principles.
      - jdietrich 10y ago
        Communications infrastructure naturally tends towards a monopoly - it makes very little sense for thirty different companies to run wires to your house, on the off chance that you'll choose them over a competitor. The advantage of the Openreach model is that the last-mile infrastructure is treated like a public good. Anyone can lease bits of that infrastructure and everyone pays the same regulated rates. The system ensures that the monopoly is as small as possible, segregating out the stuff that's a natural monopoly from the stuff that naturally supports competition. Thanks to Openreach, I have a meaningful choice over my internet service. I can choose dirt cheap service from a multinational, or I can pay a premium for specialist service. If my ISP starts doing traffic shaping or has lousy customer support, I can choose from any number of other ISPs.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    > the ISP's here have carved it up into neighborhood level monopolies This a textbook antitrust violation, at least by US law (specifically, agreeing to partition markets in this way and not compete with each other). In the absence of some exception in federal law (state law would not suffice), I'd love to see someone go after them with an antitrust case.
  - intransigent 10y ago
    If it helps, there are probably wi-fi, mobile broadband, and cellular telephone providers that probably won't ask for your name or address, although you'll probably get gouged for bandwidth.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    Is cellular data an option?
    - cpburns2009 10y ago
      It can be an option if you have good enough coverage in your area and you don't use much data (i.e., no streaming or system updates). Typically unless you have some grandfathered in plan, you'll either pay per additional chunk of data (I think Verizon charges $10/GB) or be heavily throttled.
- teh_klev 10y ago
  Until they successfully lobby governments to set up registers of known "offenders" so they can permanently blacklist you.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    No need. There's only a handful of providers in most places. Here in Rochester, NY there's really only one unless you want to go with the misery that is Frontier's DSL.
paulcole 10y ago
> a world where internet access has long since become a basic requirement to function in civil society Pretty condescending and representative of the HN bubble when you consider this fact: 13% of adult Americans never use the Internet. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/07/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/07/some-america...
- sintaxi 10y ago
  First of all that number is shrinking fast. Secondly, as your articles points out nearly all of those 13% are either seniors. The rest are very likely either unemployed, or living below the poverty line.
  - djrogers 10y ago
    Are you seriously trying to say that seniors don't function in a civil society simply because they are uncomfortable with new technology? The GP was (rightly) calling out the over-the-top assertion that anyone who isn't on the internet is of no value. If that's not condescending and hyperbolic, I don't know what is.
    - Retra 10y ago
      That wasn't the assertion. The assertion was that internet has become (read: "is considered by most to be") a basic requirement for participating in society. In other words, if you are not on the internet, you are not effectively participating in the function of society, because so much of that activity occurs over the internet.
    - beedogs 10y ago
      Literally no one made that assertion. You are deliberately going out of your way to be offended by making things up to be angry about. And frankly, if that's how you live life, you deserve to be miserable.
    - jdietrich 10y ago
      >Are you seriously trying to say that seniors don't function in a civil society simply because they are uncomfortable with new technology? To a certain extent, yes. Lack of internet access is a serious form of social exclusion, similar to having limited literacy or lacking a bank account. You'll have problems accessing government services and essential information, you'll be unable to find or apply for many jobs, you'll pay a premium for many goods and services. My town has no brick-and-mortar travel agents or bookstores. Most of the bank branches have closed. Our local housing association only advertises vacancies online. People who don't use the internet are now effectively an underclass; our government is quite rightly working towards 100% internet access.
shmerl 10y ago
DRM lobby and control freaks never sleep. So be vigilant - they'll always try to find ways to sneak in nasty police state style laws anywhere they can. You can't assume this won't come up any time again in the future.
- mahyarm 10y ago
  Time to start making counter regulations against the music industry and this kind of crap?
  - shmerl 10y ago
    Well, the first good step would be repealing DMCA-1201. So far the effort didn't move anywhere.
hellofunk 10y ago
It happened to me in 2010 for a TV torrent. Had to call my ISP and promise to delete the file. The ISP shut it off due to a request from Universal. Weird experience.
twostoned 10y ago
I am baffled by this also. It doesn't even make sense that industry is STILL trying to stop file sharing. I literally forgot about this argument until recently; It's hard to imagine something less important to worry about. Yes, I would download a car.

wmf 10y ago

You can just switch to another ISP!

ahoy 10y ago
I literally can't switch. I live in one of the biggest cities in the world, and the ISP's here have carved it up into neighborhood level monopolies. I have one option.
- mi100hael 10y ago
  That's the joke. The vast majority of the US has either 0 or 1 option for 5+ Mbps internet, and 1-5 options for dial-up/DSL.
  - seanp2k2 10y ago
    Exactly. I can get Comcast up to I think 200mbit now (I have 100) or ATT DSL which would require paying for a phone line + the service which would cost the same as Comcast and run at 768k. This is in Silicon Valley. My apartment building doesn't give me any other options (and Comcast is the only "official" one, but ATT claims they can offer me service...never tried).
    - dublinben 10y ago
      The FCC defines a broadband connection as at least 25/3. [0] That AT&T DSL doesn't even qualify as broadband any more, not that it should. [0] http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chairman-mocks-industry-claims-that-customers-dont-need-faster-internet/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chairman-mocks-i...
      - vacri 10y ago
        Having lived through the dial-up modem -> ADSL era, I think that 25/3 too high a bar to call 'broadband'. There was a definite qualitative jump from dial-up to ADSL1, and the qualitative difference between ADSL1 and faster speeds is much less noticeable. Definitely present, but less noticeable. Perhaps another way of putting how I see it - excluding really heavy traffic like video or (cough) torrenting linux isos (cough), you're rarely saturating your broadband bandwidth with casual internet use. Whereas with dial-up/non-broadband, it didn't matter what you did, you were saturating your bandwidth and always waiting. (YMMV - this is just how I see the term 'broadband' as a qualitative label)
        dmitrygr 10y ago
        Clearly you haven't seen modern websites. The bozos who write them produce blank pages that weigh in at 1MB, and god help you if you want some text there...you'll be downloading 3000 javascript frameworks, 200-300 web fonts, and of course some icon fonts too... oh, and ads..
        vacri 10y ago
        Not all websites are like that, though yes you're right more often than not.
        georgemcbay 10y ago
        I agree that modern websites too often tend towards being bloated messes, but I also agree with vacri's idea that for most uses the jump between dialup and ADSL1 feels much more substantial than further increases. After a certain point the thing rate limiting you for most network usages (including web browsing) stops being your own connection to the ISP and starts being other things, like the speed of the website you are visiting under whatever load it is currently under, the website's own bandwidth out to the greater world (split up among however many people use it), etc. I currently have 300/20 service, and though I see a nice set of numbers when I visit speed testing sites, in typical real world web browsing situations it feels no faster than the old 30/5 service I had before this.
- bb101 10y ago
  I much prefer the UK model. BT Openreach wire up the infrastructure and take care of the telephone exchanges, and then ISPs compete to provide their services on the lines. To be fair, they have been slow rolling out fibre into rural areas, but most exchanges now have a choice of 10+ ISPs for prices equivalent to $25 a month. Why aren't you all protesting about being tied into such oligopolies? America is supposed to be about free markets and open choice.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    Key words "supposed to be" but in reality there's at least as much regulation creation at the behest of corporate lobby as a barrier to entry against competitors. And notice how the median reliability and performance of the big three is worse than in countries where internet access is treated more like a public utility. But that's basically what they are, they're natural monopolies but are in some ways more heavily regulated as if they were competitive businesses where anti-competition law would be easier to execute. Notice wherever Google Fiber tries to move in how much better service and performance gets while at the same time the local one or two choices step over themselves in outrage. If the music industry were saying "punish them! turn off their water!" people would probably better understand just exactly how vindictive they're trying to be.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    > Why aren't you all protesting about being tied into such oligopolies? To be fair, you've just replaced a oligopoly with a monopoly. Openreach is a government-controlled monopoly, but US telecom is heavily regulated too. Both charge what the government lets them. As you point out, rural support is a lot less if no one can recoupe infrastructure expenses. The UK has 5x the population density of the US. So...you might be right, but it's not a clear-cut answer from basic principles.
    - jdietrich 10y ago
      Communications infrastructure naturally tends towards a monopoly - it makes very little sense for thirty different companies to run wires to your house, on the off chance that you'll choose them over a competitor. The advantage of the Openreach model is that the last-mile infrastructure is treated like a public good. Anyone can lease bits of that infrastructure and everyone pays the same regulated rates. The system ensures that the monopoly is as small as possible, segregating out the stuff that's a natural monopoly from the stuff that naturally supports competition. Thanks to Openreach, I have a meaningful choice over my internet service. I can choose dirt cheap service from a multinational, or I can pay a premium for specialist service. If my ISP starts doing traffic shaping or has lousy customer support, I can choose from any number of other ISPs.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > the ISP's here have carved it up into neighborhood level monopolies This a textbook antitrust violation, at least by US law (specifically, agreeing to partition markets in this way and not compete with each other). In the absence of some exception in federal law (state law would not suffice), I'd love to see someone go after them with an antitrust case.
- intransigent 10y ago
  If it helps, there are probably wi-fi, mobile broadband, and cellular telephone providers that probably won't ask for your name or address, although you'll probably get gouged for bandwidth.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- lostlogin 10y ago
  Is cellular data an option?
  - cpburns2009 10y ago
    It can be an option if you have good enough coverage in your area and you don't use much data (i.e., no streaming or system updates). Typically unless you have some grandfathered in plan, you'll either pay per additional chunk of data (I think Verizon charges $10/GB) or be heavily throttled.
teh_klev 10y ago
Until they successfully lobby governments to set up registers of known "offenders" so they can permanently blacklist you.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  No need. There's only a handful of providers in most places. Here in Rochester, NY there's really only one unless you want to go with the misery that is Frontier's DSL.

paulcole 10y ago

> a world where internet access has long since become a basic requirement to function in civil society Pretty condescending and representative of the HN bubble when you consider this fact: 13% of adult Americans never use the Internet. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/07/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/07/some-america...

sintaxi 10y ago
First of all that number is shrinking fast. Secondly, as your articles points out nearly all of those 13% are either seniors. The rest are very likely either unemployed, or living below the poverty line.
- djrogers 10y ago
  Are you seriously trying to say that seniors don't function in a civil society simply because they are uncomfortable with new technology? The GP was (rightly) calling out the over-the-top assertion that anyone who isn't on the internet is of no value. If that's not condescending and hyperbolic, I don't know what is.
  - Retra 10y ago
    That wasn't the assertion. The assertion was that internet has become (read: "is considered by most to be") a basic requirement for participating in society. In other words, if you are not on the internet, you are not effectively participating in the function of society, because so much of that activity occurs over the internet.
  - beedogs 10y ago
    Literally no one made that assertion. You are deliberately going out of your way to be offended by making things up to be angry about. And frankly, if that's how you live life, you deserve to be miserable.
  - jdietrich 10y ago
    >Are you seriously trying to say that seniors don't function in a civil society simply because they are uncomfortable with new technology? To a certain extent, yes. Lack of internet access is a serious form of social exclusion, similar to having limited literacy or lacking a bank account. You'll have problems accessing government services and essential information, you'll be unable to find or apply for many jobs, you'll pay a premium for many goods and services. My town has no brick-and-mortar travel agents or bookstores. Most of the bank branches have closed. Our local housing association only advertises vacancies online. People who don't use the internet are now effectively an underclass; our government is quite rightly working towards 100% internet access.

shmerl 10y ago

DRM lobby and control freaks never sleep. So be vigilant - they'll always try to find ways to sneak in nasty police state style laws anywhere they can. You can't assume this won't come up any time again in the future.

mahyarm 10y ago
Time to start making counter regulations against the music industry and this kind of crap?
- shmerl 10y ago
  Well, the first good step would be repealing DMCA-1201. So far the effort didn't move anywhere.

hellofunk 10y ago

It happened to me in 2010 for a TV torrent. Had to call my ISP and promise to delete the file. The ISP shut it off due to a request from Universal. Weird experience.

twostoned 10y ago

I am baffled by this also. It doesn't even make sense that industry is STILL trying to stop file sharing. I literally forgot about this argument until recently; It's hard to imagine something less important to worry about. Yes, I would download a car.