3 ms·

Here is a less editorialized summary of the bill: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202 It

Here is a less editorialized summary of the bill: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202 It repealed 73 pages [1] of regulation on ISPs. Personally, I'd like to see more competition in the ISP space. This bill may help by reducing barrier to entry, but the central problem remains that national carriers have lobbied the state to prevent competition at the municipal level. Furthermore, this bill seems like a minor nuisance compared to the data collected by Facebook, Google, and the NSA. So yes, I'd say this is being blown out of proportion. The Republicans aren't being evil, but they have much more to do before I'd consider them being good. [1] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-02/pdf/2016-28006.pdf#page=1 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-02/pdf/2016-28006.p...

Latty 10y ago
You think that regulation is the relevant barrier to entry to being an ISP? Not the cost of running lines or anti-competitive practices by rivals? Please, this just means no protection for an environment where, right now, we have no competition to move to when our ISP decides to do something shitty.
- mdpopescu 10y ago
  I've had an ISP willing to put 2km of copper wire to get my 15$ / month fee. (Not in the US.) I don't think the cost of wires is significant anywhere in the US either.
  - scriptkiddy 10y ago
    You may live in a country where the government subsidizes the laying of communications infrastructure. Laying fiber or even just coaxial cable is extremely expensive.
    - mdpopescu 10y ago
      No, the whole reason we have great internet is that it took the government a long time to find out about it. The company had two 20-somethings spread the wire on existing poles :)
shopkins 10y ago
> Furthermore, this bill seems like a minor nuisance compared to the data collected by Facebook, Google, and the NSA. This is the bullshit argument Republicans/ISPs are pushing that anyone technical should immediately realize as such. It's conflating two separate issues. I can choose whether or not to use Google and Facebook, and indeed willingly "agree" to their TOS when I log on. But to even get to those providers, I need to go through an ISP. As someone in rural America, I don't have a choice in ISPs, and even in a lot of cities where you have "choice," they all share the same privacy-invading practices. That's the point of the rules passed by the FCC: protecting us, the consumers who are subject to the whims of anti-competitive corporations that have access to large swaths of our personal data.
- programmarchy 10y ago
  Agree with you on Facebook and Google. There's a choice, and at least there is no law preventing competition/disruption. Not the case with the NSA, but that's a tangent. The root issue is the national providers lobbying the state to prevent competition at the municipal level. Granting more power to the FCC does not solve that problem. Rather, it would only serve to lock in the existing monopolies and further centralize control with the state/corporate nexus. The state preventing the market from functioning is not a valid reason to introduce more state intervention. In my view, competition will protect the consumer better than regulation in the long run.
  - shopkins 10y ago
    Absolutely, competition will protect the consumer best. But we need that competition first :) In the meantime, it seems logical to take some steps to limit the damage that our currently monopolistic telcos can do and give someone power to enforce a rule that: "(1) applies the customer privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet access service and other telecommunications services, (2) requires telecommunications carriers to inform customers about rights to opt in or opt out of the use or the sharing of their confidential information, (3) adopts data security and breach notification requirements, (4) prohibits broadband service offerings that are contingent on surrendering privacy rights, and (5) requires disclosures and affirmative consent when a broadband provider offers customers financial incentives in exchange for the provider's right to use a customer's confidential information." [0] I mean seriously, considering the current landscape, does that seem like unreasonable overreach? Is anyone going to go out of business with rules like that? [0]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-re...

Latty 10y ago

You think that regulation is the relevant barrier to entry to being an ISP? Not the cost of running lines or anti-competitive practices by rivals? Please, this just means no protection for an environment where, right now, we have no competition to move to when our ISP decides to do something shitty.

mdpopescu 10y ago
I've had an ISP willing to put 2km of copper wire to get my 15$ / month fee. (Not in the US.) I don't think the cost of wires is significant anywhere in the US either.
- scriptkiddy 10y ago
  You may live in a country where the government subsidizes the laying of communications infrastructure. Laying fiber or even just coaxial cable is extremely expensive.
  - mdpopescu 10y ago
    No, the whole reason we have great internet is that it took the government a long time to find out about it. The company had two 20-somethings spread the wire on existing poles :)

shopkins 10y ago

> Furthermore, this bill seems like a minor nuisance compared to the data collected by Facebook, Google, and the NSA. This is the bullshit argument Republicans/ISPs are pushing that anyone technical should immediately realize as such. It's conflating two separate issues. I can choose whether or not to use Google and Facebook, and indeed willingly "agree" to their TOS when I log on. But to even get to those providers, I need to go through an ISP. As someone in rural America, I don't have a choice in ISPs, and even in a lot of cities where you have "choice," they all share the same privacy-invading practices. That's the point of the rules passed by the FCC: protecting us, the consumers who are subject to the whims of anti-competitive corporations that have access to large swaths of our personal data.

programmarchy 10y ago
Agree with you on Facebook and Google. There's a choice, and at least there is no law preventing competition/disruption. Not the case with the NSA, but that's a tangent. The root issue is the national providers lobbying the state to prevent competition at the municipal level. Granting more power to the FCC does not solve that problem. Rather, it would only serve to lock in the existing monopolies and further centralize control with the state/corporate nexus. The state preventing the market from functioning is not a valid reason to introduce more state intervention. In my view, competition will protect the consumer better than regulation in the long run.
- shopkins 10y ago
  Absolutely, competition will protect the consumer best. But we need that competition first :) In the meantime, it seems logical to take some steps to limit the damage that our currently monopolistic telcos can do and give someone power to enforce a rule that: "(1) applies the customer privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet access service and other telecommunications services, (2) requires telecommunications carriers to inform customers about rights to opt in or opt out of the use or the sharing of their confidential information, (3) adopts data security and breach notification requirements, (4) prohibits broadband service offerings that are contingent on surrendering privacy rights, and (5) requires disclosures and affirmative consent when a broadband provider offers customers financial incentives in exchange for the provider's right to use a customer's confidential information." [0] I mean seriously, considering the current landscape, does that seem like unreasonable overreach? Is anyone going to go out of business with rules like that? [0]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-re...