14 ms·

This raises the limit on the number of subscribers a provider can have before regulation kicks in. In other words, a larger number of smaller providers have one

This raises the limit on the number of subscribers a provider can have before regulation kicks in. In other words, a larger number of smaller providers have one less regulation to worry about. Isn't more competition among providers what we want? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can – even if it's saving 6.8 hours per year in regulatory compliance – to help these smaller guys be able to take on these horrible behemoths like AT&T and Comcast?

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
Those 6.8 hours are spent making information public which is important to consumer choice. This move doesn't help competition, it harms it.
- subverter 10y ago
  I think you're making an assumption that shouldn't be assumed: that these smaller providers won't voluntarily be transparent and open. If I were competing against the likes of AT&T and Comcast, I'd use that as a competitive advantage! They're trying to differentiate themselves from the incumbents, not be exactly the same. But even if they weren't open and transparent, wouldn't technologists like ourselves push to find the limits and publish them online? We can hold them accountable just as well without piling on more regulation.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    AT&T and Comcast are required to report this information because they are large. So providing the data would not differentiate small from large companies. Furthermore, if small providers will voluntarily provide information, what is the point of getting rid of the regulation? Beyond that, maybe you can find me some examples of companies which are under the previous 100,000 threshhold which do provide this information? That would be a great boon to your point. >But even if they weren't open and transparent, wouldn't technologists like ourselves push to find the limits and publish them online? We can hold them accountable just as well without piling on more regulation. Or we could just make the company itself spend time equivalent to less than 1 work day of 1 individual and get all the data... "Piling on regulation" makes it sound as if this is incredibly burdensome which it's not. It's basically zero work from the perspective of the company. I'd like to say that I'm basically always in support of forcing companies to publish more consumer-relevant information. Remember that the perfectly-competitive model requires that consumers have perfect information. More information means more informed choices means more quality competition.
guelo 10y ago
Do we want secret network caps and slowdowns to be how they compete against the big boys?
- and0 10y ago
  This ^ I say this every time and no one has ever been able to answer: how is a simple "don't prioritize traffic" some kind of competition-killing regulation, and how would removing it actually create competition anyway?
  - neumann 10y ago
    Agreed, and given there isn't a convincing answer, this 'solution' is more of a ways to insert deregulation into law on a small level for later expansion (probably when comcast complains that it is anti-competitive).
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    If you phrase it as just "don't prioritize traffic", you've just broken most CDNs, as well as QoS that optimizes for latency/bandwidth to improve VoIP and similar. There's absolutely nothing wrong with, for instance, a content provider handing an ISP a box that sits on their network, mirrors/caches content, and serves it up to that ISP's customers. That helps the content provider, the ISP, and the ISP's customers. And I don't think the majority of "net neutrality" advocates want to break that. When people talk about "net neutrality", the problems they have in mind tend to look like either an ISP extorting content providers to extract extra revenue, or an ISP giving their own first-party services an advantage by deliberately degrading third-party services. For instance, see Comcast and Netflix. But even then, how do you draw a bright line between "deliberately degrading", "not giving an advantage to", and "not doing anything to address bandwidth problems when they arise"? (Comcast could claim the latter regarding Netflix, even though it seems obvious what it means when they don't arrange additional bandwidth on those saturated links.) What if the ISP provides the CDN infrastructure, rather than the content provider? What if the ISP contracts with a third-party CDN? How would you suggest writing a regulation that doesn't break CDNs and similar, and that can tell the difference between "deliberately hurting" and "not helping"? How will that regulation adapt when people come up with new ideas to make the web faster? (One angle I could imagine working: limiting the ability of one company or family of companies to run both an ISP and network services via that ISP. Still hard to write something robust, though.)
bubblethink 10y ago
What's a provider ? Can't you arbitrarily break a provider into smaller ones to avoid triggering this rule ?
wtallis 10y ago
> Isn't more competition among providers what we want? Only at some levels. Physical last-mile connectivity is a natural monopoly; we shouldn't want more than one trench along each driveway. If an ISP has a local monopoly that only covers one city rather than a whole state, that doesn't change the dynamics of what's fair to their users.
- scarface74 10y ago
  I would think that any many decently populated areas, it's at least a "duopoly". You would have the cable company and the phone company competing. I have a choice between Comcast and AT&T.
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    It's not really a choice. AT&T in my area of SF is still crap compared to Comcast. So yes, I could choose to use AT&T, but I would be getting substantially worse service. All cities should be investing in building out infrastructure themselves, as it would increase the desire for companies and people to live and work where they have better connectivity.
    - djsumdog 10y ago
      You can't get Fibre in your part of SF?
      - rosser 10y ago
        The only place in the city residential FTTP is an option (other than to larger apartment buildings) is, AFAIK, Sonic's FTTP trial in the Sunset. The NIMBY is strong in San Francisco. Apparently, even the imposition of the above-ground junction boxes are too much for people here, and so, once again, "We are why we can't have nice things." Even — if not especially — in a place like San Francisco. My choices, where I live, are Comcast and DSL (I'm just out of LoS for Monkeybrains). So I give Sonic money every month for a pretty hideous dollar:bandwidth ratio, comparatively, because that's still better than Comcast, in my book.
conradev 10y ago
Don't paid peering deals (i.e. Netflix paying Comcast) only reinforce the competitive advantage that these horrible behemoths have?
- amazon_not 10y ago
  Pretty much. Everybody else pays for their bandwidth. Only Comcast has the market power to demand payment for access to their customers.
fragmede 10y ago
By the way, every time I've noticed the FCC has come up on HN in the recent past, an aged account has always posted a pro Trump's FCC comment with an argument tweaked for HN's biases, as seen above, and if that is the only comment you read in the thread, you'd falsely conclude that they're right and believe that Ajit Pai's version of the FCC will be better for business than Tom Wheeler's. Ajit Pai's FCC will be better for business, incumbent businesses like Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon, who'd rather not actually pay for network engineers, sysadmins, or software developers, and just sit there raking in cash, without owing anything to the communities they're in. Reduced-cost access for people that can't afford it was the first thing on the chopping block, as well as for schools and libraries. Next up is net neutrality; this is undoubtedly the first move of many on this front. In other news today, laws subjecting ISPs like Comcast and AT&T to get permission from you, before sharing browsing history, location, and other sensitive data. Don't be fooled, Ajit Pai's FCC is a friend to big business.
- subverter 10y ago
  I'm certainly not sitting here agreeing with everything Pai's FCC has or will do, nor am I pro-Trump (not that it matters). My belief is their decisions will be a mixed bag in the long term. What I've noticed is that almost every FCC decision since Pai took over has been spun as weakening net neutrality, which I think is incorrect and unfair.
  - 1_2__3 10y ago
    In what way do you expect it to be a "mixed bag"? What are the positive parts? You seem to claim smaller ISPs will benefit, but we've already got a dearth of small ISPs in the US and I don't see the FCCs decisions likely leading to more of them, as other commenters have pointed out. So what, specifically, will be better? "Friendlier" to businesses is as much nonsense as words like "wellness" to people, so I'm looking for actual, real-world positive things.
    - subverter 10y ago
      Here's how I see it... A positive decision is one that removes regulation or protects us from the government. A negative decision is one that adds regulation or protects incumbents in the industry. We can disagree on that, but we probably agree on the bigger issue: keeping a free and open internet. I want that as much as you probably do, I just don't believe government should play the role of guardian of the internet. I see this specific decision as positive because it removes one more (albeit small) hurdle from competitors entering the market. Believe it or not, but all of this regulation protects the AT&Ts and Comcasts because they already have the infrastructure to comply. But a small, scrappy startup? It's hard enough building a quality service, but even harder when you have to devote a large chunk of time and money to even qualifying to play.
necessity 10y ago
>Isn't more competition among providers what we want? If that was the case no one would support net neutrality. We got it in Brazil and smaller ISPs are all shutting down (e.g. Viavale, Telenorte, etc). And poor people do not benefit from free data plans anymore (like free WhatsApp/Twitter, etc - WhatsApp is a major form of communication in Brazil, both socially and professionaly; personally I use Telegram but most people use Whats).
st3v3r 10y ago
I don't buy that argument for a second. Especially with this rule. Why should who I choose to do business with effect my rights?
rastapasta42 10y ago
A lot of the "smaller guys" who benefit from this regulations are subsidiaries of the behemoths like AT&T and Comcast.

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago

Those 6.8 hours are spent making information public which is important to consumer choice. This move doesn't help competition, it harms it.

subverter 10y ago
I think you're making an assumption that shouldn't be assumed: that these smaller providers won't voluntarily be transparent and open. If I were competing against the likes of AT&T and Comcast, I'd use that as a competitive advantage! They're trying to differentiate themselves from the incumbents, not be exactly the same. But even if they weren't open and transparent, wouldn't technologists like ourselves push to find the limits and publish them online? We can hold them accountable just as well without piling on more regulation.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  AT&T and Comcast are required to report this information because they are large. So providing the data would not differentiate small from large companies. Furthermore, if small providers will voluntarily provide information, what is the point of getting rid of the regulation? Beyond that, maybe you can find me some examples of companies which are under the previous 100,000 threshhold which do provide this information? That would be a great boon to your point. >But even if they weren't open and transparent, wouldn't technologists like ourselves push to find the limits and publish them online? We can hold them accountable just as well without piling on more regulation. Or we could just make the company itself spend time equivalent to less than 1 work day of 1 individual and get all the data... "Piling on regulation" makes it sound as if this is incredibly burdensome which it's not. It's basically zero work from the perspective of the company. I'd like to say that I'm basically always in support of forcing companies to publish more consumer-relevant information. Remember that the perfectly-competitive model requires that consumers have perfect information. More information means more informed choices means more quality competition.

guelo 10y ago

Do we want secret network caps and slowdowns to be how they compete against the big boys?

and0 10y ago
This ^ I say this every time and no one has ever been able to answer: how is a simple "don't prioritize traffic" some kind of competition-killing regulation, and how would removing it actually create competition anyway?
- neumann 10y ago
  Agreed, and given there isn't a convincing answer, this 'solution' is more of a ways to insert deregulation into law on a small level for later expansion (probably when comcast complains that it is anti-competitive).
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  If you phrase it as just "don't prioritize traffic", you've just broken most CDNs, as well as QoS that optimizes for latency/bandwidth to improve VoIP and similar. There's absolutely nothing wrong with, for instance, a content provider handing an ISP a box that sits on their network, mirrors/caches content, and serves it up to that ISP's customers. That helps the content provider, the ISP, and the ISP's customers. And I don't think the majority of "net neutrality" advocates want to break that. When people talk about "net neutrality", the problems they have in mind tend to look like either an ISP extorting content providers to extract extra revenue, or an ISP giving their own first-party services an advantage by deliberately degrading third-party services. For instance, see Comcast and Netflix. But even then, how do you draw a bright line between "deliberately degrading", "not giving an advantage to", and "not doing anything to address bandwidth problems when they arise"? (Comcast could claim the latter regarding Netflix, even though it seems obvious what it means when they don't arrange additional bandwidth on those saturated links.) What if the ISP provides the CDN infrastructure, rather than the content provider? What if the ISP contracts with a third-party CDN? How would you suggest writing a regulation that doesn't break CDNs and similar, and that can tell the difference between "deliberately hurting" and "not helping"? How will that regulation adapt when people come up with new ideas to make the web faster? (One angle I could imagine working: limiting the ability of one company or family of companies to run both an ISP and network services via that ISP. Still hard to write something robust, though.)

bubblethink 10y ago

What's a provider ? Can't you arbitrarily break a provider into smaller ones to avoid triggering this rule ?

wtallis 10y ago

> Isn't more competition among providers what we want? Only at some levels. Physical last-mile connectivity is a natural monopoly; we shouldn't want more than one trench along each driveway. If an ISP has a local monopoly that only covers one city rather than a whole state, that doesn't change the dynamics of what's fair to their users.

scarface74 10y ago
I would think that any many decently populated areas, it's at least a "duopoly". You would have the cable company and the phone company competing. I have a choice between Comcast and AT&T.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  It's not really a choice. AT&T in my area of SF is still crap compared to Comcast. So yes, I could choose to use AT&T, but I would be getting substantially worse service. All cities should be investing in building out infrastructure themselves, as it would increase the desire for companies and people to live and work where they have better connectivity.
  - djsumdog 10y ago
    You can't get Fibre in your part of SF?
    - rosser 10y ago
      The only place in the city residential FTTP is an option (other than to larger apartment buildings) is, AFAIK, Sonic's FTTP trial in the Sunset. The NIMBY is strong in San Francisco. Apparently, even the imposition of the above-ground junction boxes are too much for people here, and so, once again, "We are why we can't have nice things." Even — if not especially — in a place like San Francisco. My choices, where I live, are Comcast and DSL (I'm just out of LoS for Monkeybrains). So I give Sonic money every month for a pretty hideous dollar:bandwidth ratio, comparatively, because that's still better than Comcast, in my book.

conradev 10y ago

Don't paid peering deals (i.e. Netflix paying Comcast) only reinforce the competitive advantage that these horrible behemoths have?

amazon_not 10y ago
Pretty much. Everybody else pays for their bandwidth. Only Comcast has the market power to demand payment for access to their customers.

fragmede 10y ago

By the way, every time I've noticed the FCC has come up on HN in the recent past, an aged account has always posted a pro Trump's FCC comment with an argument tweaked for HN's biases, as seen above, and if that is the only comment you read in the thread, you'd falsely conclude that they're right and believe that Ajit Pai's version of the FCC will be better for business than Tom Wheeler's. Ajit Pai's FCC will be better for business, incumbent businesses like Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon, who'd rather not actually pay for network engineers, sysadmins, or software developers, and just sit there raking in cash, without owing anything to the communities they're in. Reduced-cost access for people that can't afford it was the first thing on the chopping block, as well as for schools and libraries. Next up is net neutrality; this is undoubtedly the first move of many on this front. In other news today, laws subjecting ISPs like Comcast and AT&T to get permission from you, before sharing browsing history, location, and other sensitive data. Don't be fooled, Ajit Pai's FCC is a friend to big business.

subverter 10y ago
I'm certainly not sitting here agreeing with everything Pai's FCC has or will do, nor am I pro-Trump (not that it matters). My belief is their decisions will be a mixed bag in the long term. What I've noticed is that almost every FCC decision since Pai took over has been spun as weakening net neutrality, which I think is incorrect and unfair.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  In what way do you expect it to be a "mixed bag"? What are the positive parts? You seem to claim smaller ISPs will benefit, but we've already got a dearth of small ISPs in the US and I don't see the FCCs decisions likely leading to more of them, as other commenters have pointed out. So what, specifically, will be better? "Friendlier" to businesses is as much nonsense as words like "wellness" to people, so I'm looking for actual, real-world positive things.
  - subverter 10y ago
    Here's how I see it... A positive decision is one that removes regulation or protects us from the government. A negative decision is one that adds regulation or protects incumbents in the industry. We can disagree on that, but we probably agree on the bigger issue: keeping a free and open internet. I want that as much as you probably do, I just don't believe government should play the role of guardian of the internet. I see this specific decision as positive because it removes one more (albeit small) hurdle from competitors entering the market. Believe it or not, but all of this regulation protects the AT&Ts and Comcasts because they already have the infrastructure to comply. But a small, scrappy startup? It's hard enough building a quality service, but even harder when you have to devote a large chunk of time and money to even qualifying to play.

necessity 10y ago

>Isn't more competition among providers what we want? If that was the case no one would support net neutrality. We got it in Brazil and smaller ISPs are all shutting down (e.g. Viavale, Telenorte, etc). And poor people do not benefit from free data plans anymore (like free WhatsApp/Twitter, etc - WhatsApp is a major form of communication in Brazil, both socially and professionaly; personally I use Telegram but most people use Whats).

st3v3r 10y ago

I don't buy that argument for a second. Especially with this rule. Why should who I choose to do business with effect my rights?

rastapasta42 10y ago

A lot of the "smaller guys" who benefit from this regulations are subsidiaries of the behemoths like AT&T and Comcast.