4 ms·

Is there another side to this debate or is it really this black and white?

vancan1ty 10y ago
One thing that I think is being ignored and was not mentioned in the article is that the referenced regulations were passed by the FCC near the tail-end of the Obama administration and never actually went into effect. So, strictly speaking, this vote did not change ISP regulations, it just keeps them the same as they have been in the past.
- heurist 10y ago
  I have no context on this... What were those regulations? The whole argument against this was that ISPs would be able to sell our private browsing history. Anyone know if they can really do that now?
- pseudalopex 10y ago
  The FCC regulations were meant to provide protections that were previously enforced by the FTC. This vote keeps ISP regulations different from what they were in the past.
orthecreedence 10y ago
> Is there another side to this debate Yes, think of all the poor, unfortunate ISPs that are barely scraping by every year to give you your unprecedented internet bandwidth. These are small companies, owned by people who have children to feed. Selling your private data is one of the only ways they can stay out of bankruptcy. We all need to be a little more mindful of who we're hurting next time we enact this kind of draconian regulation.
aero142 10y ago
I'll take a stab at it because I think it's a useful discussion. Allowing internet companies to make contractual arrangements with their customers will result in situations similar to Google. Google shows you ads for things you are interested in, and in return you get a really great search engine for free. Similarly, if ISPs are allowed to collect information about your browsing habits, and sell it to advertisers, they will lower the monthly rates for consumers. The consumers can then choose whether they would rather pay lower rates and their ISP sells their browsing information to advertisers, or pay more. The obvious followup is complaints about how ofter consumers don't have a choice. Perhaps the reason there is so little competition is that local municipalities enter into franchise agreements where in order to add internet to one house, you have to agree to cover the entire area. This makes it so that only big pockets and people that can influence politicians get the build an ISP. Also, we could look at access fees to explain monopoly providers. https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju... If there were genuine competition perhaps real consumer preference would win out, whichever that may be. Rather than deciding how much people value privacy, perhaps we should let people choose for themselves at a level other than the federal one.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  See, I don't buy the market based arguments. This is not something we want anyone doing, regardless of ISP. So why allow it to happen at all?
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    The "market" counterargument is to set an infinite price on the practice. Or in other words: a taboo.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

One thing that I think is being ignored and was not mentioned in the article is that the referenced regulations were passed by the FCC near the tail-end of the Obama administration and never actually went into effect. So, strictly speaking, this vote did not change ISP regulations, it just keeps them the same as they have been in the past.

heurist 10y ago
I have no context on this... What were those regulations? The whole argument against this was that ISPs would be able to sell our private browsing history. Anyone know if they can really do that now?
pseudalopex 10y ago
The FCC regulations were meant to provide protections that were previously enforced by the FTC. This vote keeps ISP regulations different from what they were in the past.

orthecreedence 10y ago

> Is there another side to this debate Yes, think of all the poor, unfortunate ISPs that are barely scraping by every year to give you your unprecedented internet bandwidth. These are small companies, owned by people who have children to feed. Selling your private data is one of the only ways they can stay out of bankruptcy. We all need to be a little more mindful of who we're hurting next time we enact this kind of draconian regulation.

aero142 10y ago

I'll take a stab at it because I think it's a useful discussion. Allowing internet companies to make contractual arrangements with their customers will result in situations similar to Google. Google shows you ads for things you are interested in, and in return you get a really great search engine for free. Similarly, if ISPs are allowed to collect information about your browsing habits, and sell it to advertisers, they will lower the monthly rates for consumers. The consumers can then choose whether they would rather pay lower rates and their ISP sells their browsing information to advertisers, or pay more. The obvious followup is complaints about how ofter consumers don't have a choice. Perhaps the reason there is so little competition is that local municipalities enter into franchise agreements where in order to add internet to one house, you have to agree to cover the entire area. This makes it so that only big pockets and people that can influence politicians get the build an ISP. Also, we could look at access fees to explain monopoly providers. https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju... If there were genuine competition perhaps real consumer preference would win out, whichever that may be. Rather than deciding how much people value privacy, perhaps we should let people choose for themselves at a level other than the federal one.

st3v3r 10y ago
See, I don't buy the market based arguments. This is not something we want anyone doing, regardless of ISP. So why allow it to happen at all?
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  The "market" counterargument is to set an infinite price on the practice. Or in other words: a taboo.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]