3 ms·

Wouldn't it be great if, right after net neutrality was scrapped, some ISP came out and said this: "Thanks to the innovation-promoting policies at the new FCC,

Wouldn't it be great if, right after net neutrality was scrapped, some ISP came out and said this: "Thanks to the innovation-promoting policies at the new FCC, we're pleased to announce that, starting next month, FoxNews.com, Brietbart, 8chan, the Drudge Report and reason.com, will be deprioritized to 1 Kb/sec unless you purchase our premium plan for only an extra $100/month. God bless America and the free market." What would be even better is if they only did it in markets where there was no competition, and they announced that they would drop the plan as soon as another competitor offered service in the area. Wonder how fast people's ambivalence about net neutrality would shift then. C'mon, doesn't anyone have the balls? Sonic?

emodendroket 10y ago
I think looking to businesses to oppose an FCC that's too business-friendly is probably a dead end.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Looking to certain classes of businesses to oppose an FCC which supports one narrow set of businesses against the interests of a much larger set of businesses, may, however, be more fruitful. But, certainly, looking to ISPs to oppose giving ISPs more latitude to capture the value of Internet services is a doomed cause.
jjawssd 10y ago
Let it happen, if ISPs are open to true competition. If ISPs are opened up to true competition then a competitor will appear which absolves consumers of the pain points of their current service. The biggest unknown right now is whether there will be more competition in the ISP space. We need this now more than ever.
- wlll 10y ago
  That's a nice idea in theory, except I predict it won't happen. Unregulated capitalism is meant to mean (or at least people seem to expect) better service, more choice, better value through competition for your business. In reality all I've seen is the opposite. The US has bad and/or expensive healthcare, cell service, Internet, TV service to name a few.
  - at-fates-hands 10y ago
    >> In reality all I've seen is the opposite. The US has bad and/or expensive healthcare, cell service, Internet, TV service to name a few. I feel like this is cyclical. You start out with a bunch of smaller companies that compete and consumers tend to win with the advantages you listed. Over time, some get bigger, the smaller ones eventually either go under, or get absorbed by the larger, growing companies until you end up with either one or two really large companies that then become essentially monopolies. A prefect example is here in the Midwest when they deregulated US West Communications - now Qwest Telecom. There was a huge explosion of CLECS getting into the game, leasing lines from Qwest and essentially competing with Qwest using its own infrastructure (which seemed weird to me). Consumers won (in the short term) because these new companies were taking all the risks. How much above cost the CLEC's were willing to risk either made them or broke them. It was a gold rush to see who would have the thinnest margin and try and lock down the most customers they could and get them to switch. I have many, many stories from those days, but in the end you know what happened? Most of those companies went under, a few survived and merged with other companies and are still around, and most of the people who wanted more choice and lower costs eventually went back to Qwest anyways after having poor billing experiences, poor installation, and poor customer service. People think all you need to do is have more competition and it will solve everything - but that's just the beginning.
davesque 10y ago
I'm not sure they would ever do that. They're going to try and set up a favorable environment for the politicians who will pad their bottom line. That means making it easier to access sites like foxnews.com and breitbart.com.
- croon 10y ago
  I think that was his point. Of course they would never do that, as it's opposite their motives. But it would be the utopian thought experiment of transparently communicating a concept in practice.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> Wonder how fast people's ambivalence about net neutrality would shift then. This is the crux of the argument. If you feel government can dutifully manage the internet then you're generally for NN. If you feel the government is incapable of managing the internet, then you're against NN. My arguments for being against it are simple: - Not sure how people are all for privacy and encryption, but also want the government managing the internet. They've proven time and time again that if you give them a foot, they take a mile. There is a strange relationship I see to people who distrust the government but are readily willing to allow them to manage nearly every aspect of the internet. - Also, I've already read a ton on here about monopolies and how they're bad. How is the government managing and controlling the internet NOT a monopoly? How is it once you hand them the keys to the kingdom that they get to pick the winners and losers a good thing? Again, the same people who were against no bid government contracts are the same people touting NN? It doesn't make sense to me. - The government has shown repeatedly it is a poor manager. We don't need to look very far to see how government waste and mismanagement costs tax payers billions every year. Do I have to mention the ACA sites that cost north of $3B? The fraud in Medicaid and Medicare? The USPS and how they're effectively bankrupt right now? Hell, just the DOD alone costs us billions every year. If people wanted a more efficient system and competition that will lower their costs, I don't see how letting the government run it is a viable solution at all. The list of government entities that are poorly managed and run deep deficits is a mile long. Lastly, if you've read the FCC's Open Internet order from 2015 you'd find it pretty gives the government carte blanche to micromanage nearly every aspect of the internet: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1_Rcd.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1_Rc...

emodendroket 10y ago

I think looking to businesses to oppose an FCC that's too business-friendly is probably a dead end.

dragonwriter 10y ago
Looking to certain classes of businesses to oppose an FCC which supports one narrow set of businesses against the interests of a much larger set of businesses, may, however, be more fruitful. But, certainly, looking to ISPs to oppose giving ISPs more latitude to capture the value of Internet services is a doomed cause.

jjawssd 10y ago

Let it happen, if ISPs are open to true competition. If ISPs are opened up to true competition then a competitor will appear which absolves consumers of the pain points of their current service. The biggest unknown right now is whether there will be more competition in the ISP space. We need this now more than ever.

wlll 10y ago
That's a nice idea in theory, except I predict it won't happen. Unregulated capitalism is meant to mean (or at least people seem to expect) better service, more choice, better value through competition for your business. In reality all I've seen is the opposite. The US has bad and/or expensive healthcare, cell service, Internet, TV service to name a few.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  >> In reality all I've seen is the opposite. The US has bad and/or expensive healthcare, cell service, Internet, TV service to name a few. I feel like this is cyclical. You start out with a bunch of smaller companies that compete and consumers tend to win with the advantages you listed. Over time, some get bigger, the smaller ones eventually either go under, or get absorbed by the larger, growing companies until you end up with either one or two really large companies that then become essentially monopolies. A prefect example is here in the Midwest when they deregulated US West Communications - now Qwest Telecom. There was a huge explosion of CLECS getting into the game, leasing lines from Qwest and essentially competing with Qwest using its own infrastructure (which seemed weird to me). Consumers won (in the short term) because these new companies were taking all the risks. How much above cost the CLEC's were willing to risk either made them or broke them. It was a gold rush to see who would have the thinnest margin and try and lock down the most customers they could and get them to switch. I have many, many stories from those days, but in the end you know what happened? Most of those companies went under, a few survived and merged with other companies and are still around, and most of the people who wanted more choice and lower costs eventually went back to Qwest anyways after having poor billing experiences, poor installation, and poor customer service. People think all you need to do is have more competition and it will solve everything - but that's just the beginning.

davesque 10y ago

I'm not sure they would ever do that. They're going to try and set up a favorable environment for the politicians who will pad their bottom line. That means making it easier to access sites like foxnews.com and breitbart.com.

croon 10y ago
I think that was his point. Of course they would never do that, as it's opposite their motives. But it would be the utopian thought experiment of transparently communicating a concept in practice.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

at-fates-hands 10y ago

>> Wonder how fast people's ambivalence about net neutrality would shift then. This is the crux of the argument. If you feel government can dutifully manage the internet then you're generally for NN. If you feel the government is incapable of managing the internet, then you're against NN. My arguments for being against it are simple: - Not sure how people are all for privacy and encryption, but also want the government managing the internet. They've proven time and time again that if you give them a foot, they take a mile. There is a strange relationship I see to people who distrust the government but are readily willing to allow them to manage nearly every aspect of the internet. - Also, I've already read a ton on here about monopolies and how they're bad. How is the government managing and controlling the internet NOT a monopoly? How is it once you hand them the keys to the kingdom that they get to pick the winners and losers a good thing? Again, the same people who were against no bid government contracts are the same people touting NN? It doesn't make sense to me. - The government has shown repeatedly it is a poor manager. We don't need to look very far to see how government waste and mismanagement costs tax payers billions every year. Do I have to mention the ACA sites that cost north of $3B? The fraud in Medicaid and Medicare? The USPS and how they're effectively bankrupt right now? Hell, just the DOD alone costs us billions every year. If people wanted a more efficient system and competition that will lower their costs, I don't see how letting the government run it is a viable solution at all. The list of government entities that are poorly managed and run deep deficits is a mile long. Lastly, if you've read the FCC's Open Internet order from 2015 you'd find it pretty gives the government carte blanche to micromanage nearly every aspect of the internet: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1_Rcd.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1_Rc...