8 ms·

The FCC voted to start the process of eliminating net neutrality rules

236 points by Santosh83 9y ago

kem 9y ago
Is this a surprise? Pai has made it abundantly clear he doesn't care what consumers think. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but the idea he would respond to their concerns always seemed naive to me.
- cavanasm 9y ago
  Agreed. Even with service providers saying "we aren't trying to get rid of net neutrality", Pai himself has in numerous public forums said explicitly that he wants to get rid of net neutrality.
- jackmott 9y ago
  no it isn't a surprise but we should still be mad as hell, try to stop it, and punish those responsible.
- shmerl 9y ago
  He might not care, but big amount of negative responses can help beat him in court, when FCC will be sued for repealing Net Neutrality. If it will be demonstrated that FCC acted against public interest, courts can simply prevent this idiocy from happening. It also helps the Congress to understand that people pay attention aren't buying the monopolistic koolaid. So, please comment if you care.
  - pvnick 9y ago
    Be careful of wishing for judicial oligarchy, because when it happens you may not enjoy what it looks like.
    - lostcolony 9y ago
      You prefer the Rule of Pai? I think I'd prefer the multiple court of appeals process to determine whether the FCC discharged its duty, rather than an uncontested decision by Pai that clearly goes against what the people want, in defiance of the duty the FCC is charged with.
      - pvnick 9y ago
        I prefer the rule of nobody but the consumer. That's what markets are for.
        Spare_account 9y ago
        My understanding is that in most US cities there is only one choice of cable Internet provider so the consumer cannot choose a provider that offers neutral service. So the FCC is required to force the providers to comply with the will of the people. And they're not doing it.
        shmerl 9y ago
        In case of monopolists, you get the rule of monopolists. Do you prefer that? That's part of what Net Neutrality is supposed to protect from.
        metalliqaz 9y ago
        Yeah, that would be great in the Ayn Rand's fantasy land. Unfortunately, back here in reality there is no ISP market. Consumers have little to no choice, and vertically integrated mega-corps have a stranglehold on everything. We all rely on our representative government to stand up to a titan like Comcast.
        devnonymous 9y ago
        Yep, but worth reminding you at this point that in this case you are the commodity, the companies are the consumers and the Internet is the market. Free market will make more sense if you think about it that way.
        Teknoman117 9y ago
    - metalliqaz 9y ago
      You don't understand the word "oligarchy".
      - qubex 9y ago
        Kritarchy — rule by judges: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritarchy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritarchy
        metalliqaz 9y ago
        In the context of his comment, as well has his other posts, it is clear to me that he objects to judges essentially limiting what people can and can't do. In my opinion, it's implied he applies that to those currently in power and their assumed mandate. Unfortunately for that argument, we don't have rule by judges by any stretch. Judges (and police/prosecutors/etc) do have lots of power, but they are still bound by the law and therefore checked by the legislative branch of the government, should it come to that.
  - schoen 9y ago
    The courts don't have to examine whether or not they think a rule change is in the public interest, nor would they have to conclude that the public interest is proven by what position got the most individual comments in support of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States)#Standard_of_judicial_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(... They could conclude that an agency unreasonably ignored specific arguments in public comments, but probably not that the fact that the agency wasn't swayed by the volume of the comments was unreasonable.
    - shmerl 9y ago
      If the arguments were repeated multiple times, it's easier to point out that FCC intentionally ignored them, and it's not "we didn't notice" situation.
- kevin_b_er 9y ago
  Pai, like most Republicans, have repeatedly shown their view that the profit of a corporation is always more important than human interests.
- pvnick 9y ago
  I'm a consumer and I think this is a good thing. Can't make all the people happy all the time. Edit: Besides, government policies reflexively guided by consumer sentiment is called populism, which is dangerous.
  - aaomidi 9y ago
    Please explain.
    - pvnick 9y ago
      Read this article by the brilliant Ben Shapiro: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/10/7-reasons-net-neutrality/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/10/7-reasons... Edit: To those knee-jerk rejecting the argument based on the Breitbart domain, besides being intellectually lazy, you should know that Ben Shapiro is a very well-respected author on matters of economics and politics (and indeed that Breitbart used to be a very respectable media outlet before the founder, Andrew Breitbart, passed away and the company was taken over by Steve Bannon)
      - digitalneal 9y ago
        Had to stop reading after this quote "ISPs generally do not discriminate against highly-trafficked websites. If they did – holding a figurative gun to the head of those websites by throttling back speed to those websites – consumers would dump those ISPs in favor of others." I'd believe this true if any of the large cities I have lived in actually had competition between ISPs.
        pvnick 9y ago
        Ok well you made it about 10% through the article - at least you made a modest attempt at understanding the other side of the debate.
        digitalneal 9y ago
joeblow9999 9y ago
"The Internet was not broken in 2015" before the rules were imposed, Pai said today before the vote. "We were not living in a digital dystopia. Nonetheless, the FCC that year succumbed to partisan pressure from the White House and changed course." 100% accurate
- bwanab 9y ago
  Right. And 100% wrong. By 2015, it was clear that the telcos and cable operators were determined to use their positions to extract more rent. So while it might be true that up until 2015 the internet was not broken, there's no guarantee that will continue now that they've been given the greenlight.
  - zerocrates 9y ago
    There's also the minor detail that there were different net neutrality rules in force from 2010 to 2014, before they were largely struck down in Verizon v. FCC
- AbrahamParangi 9y ago
  The statement remains accurate if you change 2015 to 2017. What's really going on is we have a disagreement between relatively young, innovative tech companies and relatively old, relatively monopolistic communications conglomerates. The question at hand is whether it's better for most folks if the tech companies or the communications conglomerates get their way.
ph0rd 9y ago
The Problem: Regulatory agencies not directly beholden to anyone. The FCC, EPA, OSHA, etc. act essentially unilaterally. This is a huge overreach. Second, regional monopolies on telecom services granted by the state. Third, the fact that people don't recognize the first two as a problem. The solution: Break up regulatory agencies, do away with regional monopolies, and deregulate telecoms. Let the market sort it out, because the market is more beholden to consumer interests than the state ever will or can be. Not the solution: more regulation on top of other regulations to prevent the problems caused by regulation.
- CoryG89 9y ago
  Which regulations do you attribute to having caused the formation of monopolies?
- jackmott 9y ago
  First you fix the problem of ISP monopolies then. First you do that, then you can get rid of or relax net neutrality rules.
- blackguardx 9y ago
  If you broke up the FCC, the wireless spectrum would get polluted and wireless device performance would be spotty at best.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    Not to mention the loss of content restrictions - such as nudity or profanity on primetime TV.
- cycrutchfield 9y ago
  It's like you don't even understand the concept of a natural monopoly.
- tdb7893 9y ago
  The problem is that in many situations the market doesn't operate efficiently at all in it's natural state. There's a long litany of reasons markets are inefficient (imperfect information on either side, externalities, and monopolies, just to name a few). Interventions, such as regulations are there to protect the consumers in the case of these market failures. In this case a competative market protects consumers much better than a monopolistic one so regulations that foster a more competative market would be able to protect consumers better than no regulations. I'm not saying that these specfic regulations are amazing but there is definitely a good theoretical framework for regulations being good for consumers in certain cases.
zerocrates 9y ago
> But Chairman Ajit Pai is making no promises about reinstating the two-year-old net neutrality rules that forbid ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful Internet content, or prioritizing content in exchange for payment. Well, that's good, because it would make no sense if he was promising that. The current net neutrality rules from 2015 only work in the context of Title II classification; that's why they went together. The FCC already tried to do net neutrality under some more tenuous authority it had back in 2010, and it lost at the D.C. Circuit. This is why we got reclassification in the first place.
- zerocrates 9y ago
  The article does actually say basically this much further down, when discussing Clyburn's dissent: > Despite seeking public comment on whether to impose new net neutrality rules without the use of Title II, the Republican majority did not propose the use of any specific legal authority that could enforce such rules
jsat 9y ago
My hope is that the highly tech dependent area I live in (Seattle) will force the market to keep an open internet. We have enough competition to ensure that, I think. However, that won't be the case for millions of Americans across the country. This is awful, but I think the outrage will eventually remedy the problem if telecoms overstep. Though telecoms may try more subtle means of manipulating traffic, which could be worse. Ugh.
- abandonliberty 9y ago
  Insufficient people will really notice, care, or act in synchrony to enact change as long as the abuses don't get overly egregious. This is how democracy works.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  I live in a big apartment building in downtown Palo Alto, and I have the choice of cable company (fast) or phone company (slow). The % of Americans who have more choices is quite tiny... you're extremely lucky if you have even 2 fast choices! That said, it would be awesome if Seattle did have enough competition to have a completely different market from elsewhere in the US: imagine the cable company trying to explain why they have wildly different offerings in places with and without competition.
  - existencebox 9y ago
    That is, literally, the current situation. I moved from Baltimore to Seattle. I paid for Comcast for a time in both locations (in Baltimore it was the ONLY option, in Seattle you usually have 1-1.5 other options) At least the year I moved, I went from 69$ for ~55 down 5 up to 50$ for something like 100 down 10 up. (Yes it was the "promotion rate" but I played that game on both sides.) Over the years Comcast played the same "Ratchet up the rates" game, and eventually I got a house specifically with the mindset to 'not have comcast' and moved to an area with I believe 3 broadband choices. I now pay 50$ for I believe ~400 down (was originally 250 but they've been sneakily upgrading their system, wave is fucking amazing). On top of that service reliability is MUCH better, support is _fantastic_ and I have much less concern that my ISP is doing something scummy. Monoplistic local practices taking away any incentive for consumer friendly offerings is not a hypothetical, it is the reality for large swaths of america.
doubt_me 9y ago
Oh cool another discussion Hacker News can censor with flags.
natermer 9y ago
Red herring. Title II is how the FCC protected the AT&T monopoly. Due to various regulatory goals (such as controlling telecommunications for cold war purposes) FCC found it much easier to deal with and regulate one corporate entity then a wide variety of different corporations. Title II gives the FCC authority to regulate pricing in peering agreements and because of this they were able to essentially price AT&T's competitors out of the market and prevent new companies from being created. There is no reason to believe that Title II common carrier rules would improve competition or prevent companies like Comcast from continuing to own huge government-protected regional monopolies. More bad regulation is the wrong answer to the problem of bad regulation.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  ... the FCC said it would never use Title II to regulate Internet prices, and they did not. Nor have I ever seen anyone say that Title II was going to solve all of the problems caused by the un-competitive ISP market. So you're vigorously beating a strawman.
  - natermer 9y ago
    Uhh... The ENTIRE POINT of Title II is common carrier. Common carrier means they get to regulate peering costs. They don't regulate the costs ISP charge you personally. They regulate how peering agreements between businesses work. That's why they call it 'common carrier'. That's the whole point to establishing common carrier in the first place. It gives FCC rights to step into a dispute and regulate. What other disputes are going to happen other then ones over pricing? > Title II was going to solve all of the problems caused by the un-competitive ISP market. It's not going to solve any of the problems and it never will.
- opo 9y ago
  The FCC said at the start: "...As part of this decision, the Commission also refrains (or "forbears") from enforcing provisions of Title II that are not relevant to modern broadband service. " The rules they were enforcing were: "Bright Line Rules: No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates." I don't think three is a lot of evidence we will gain more competition or improve the quality/quantity of broadband by giving them up.
rc_kas 9y ago
R.I.P. Internet. It was great while it lasted. I did love you.
Pharylon 9y ago
When this kind of thing happens it's important to remember that both sides are exactly the same.
ape4 9y ago
I would actually go to a live protest about this.
blackflame7000 9y ago
Zero-Rating has always struck me as a blatant loophole in net neutrality. If an ISP throttles bandwidth on resources that are not zero rated due to overages, aren't they effectively skirting the core principle of net-neutrality? Bigger companies can buy more media and thus zero-rate more content than the little guys. This was the driving force between the AT&T/Time-Warner merger.
- otoburb 9y ago
  Zero rating is about billing (i.e. giving away for free certain content), not bandwidth throttling. It used to be called 1-800-Data in the early days because carriers likened the concept to toll free phone lines. Conceptually, consumers aren't up in arms about toll free phone lines. I'm surprised Pai hasn't brought that up yet. Bandwidth throttling specific sites would be a more serious concern (à la Netflix and Verizon). Bandwidth throttling certain types of content (e.g. steaming video) seems to be the border that carriers are willing to push.
  - blackflame7000 9y ago
    I see what you're saying with the toll-free analogy but it seems fairly common for ISPs to throttle speeds after a monthly cap has been reached. Since the throttling wouldn't apply to zero-rated services(ie their own) isn't the end effect an unfair degradation in competitors services?
    - otoburb 9y ago
      I understand why you are making the leap assuming zero-rated services would somehow be exempt from throttling, but that is outside the scope of zero-rating. In cases of throttling (cap thresholds, adverse network conditions, etc), all content (zero-rated or otherwise) should be throttled. If zero-rated services are exempt then that's a whole new kettle of fish. The idea of selective, named, service throttling vs. blanket throttling based on service type is surely bouncing around within network operator groups due to the Title II FCC vote, but that could apply whether content is zero-rated or not. Selective throttling != zero-rating.
r34yll2k 9y ago
We will engineer around it.
rocky1138 9y ago
How does this affect the rest of the world?
Pica_soO 9y ago
The invisible hand can not fix this. Its currently busy repairing a chinese ventilator i bought to fight the heat. Ran for five minutes, then the hand got stuck in it, loosing several fingertips and burning itself on the e-motor. Its a horrible sight, invisible blood, invisible bone pieces everywhere, and this small thing in the cage i wont let out until it gets that damned thing fixed. Seems the market radialinzkis are desperately trying to create good points for the socialism of tomorrow.
iamleppert 9y ago
Do we really think that huge tech companies like Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Microsoft, Google and Facebook, whom are not ISPs, but could be significantly impacted by a less open Internet will let this happen? These companies have collectively far more power than Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T and Verizon, who really have been reduced to a bunch of "dumb pipes". These companies have proven time and time again they are incapable of creating either consumer services, content, applications, ecosystems, or hardware. And as new wireless standards take hold that are far more powerful and easy to deploy, their control will be greatly weakening. When you no longer need to lay significant fiber or have a lot of last-mile infrastructure to consumers, what value or leverage could they possibly have?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
1maginary 9y ago
Maybe someone could automate a way to compare tests made on e.g. Netflix' speed test site[0] and speedtest[1]. If there's a huge discrepancy, then it'd be fair to conclude that the ISP is throttling specific connections. [0] https://fast.com https://fast.com [1] https://speedtest.net https://speedtest.net
norea-armozel 9y ago
I wonder how long before some left leaning NGOs build their own zero-rated Basics-clone which then the GOP will collectively clutch pearls in horror. It'll be amusing to see them try to make a law that's patently dumb that even conservative judges will strike it down.

236 points by Santosh83 9y ago

kem 9y ago

Is this a surprise? Pai has made it abundantly clear he doesn't care what consumers think. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but the idea he would respond to their concerns always seemed naive to me.

cavanasm 9y ago
Agreed. Even with service providers saying "we aren't trying to get rid of net neutrality", Pai himself has in numerous public forums said explicitly that he wants to get rid of net neutrality.
jackmott 9y ago
no it isn't a surprise but we should still be mad as hell, try to stop it, and punish those responsible.
shmerl 9y ago
He might not care, but big amount of negative responses can help beat him in court, when FCC will be sued for repealing Net Neutrality. If it will be demonstrated that FCC acted against public interest, courts can simply prevent this idiocy from happening. It also helps the Congress to understand that people pay attention aren't buying the monopolistic koolaid. So, please comment if you care.
- pvnick 9y ago
  Be careful of wishing for judicial oligarchy, because when it happens you may not enjoy what it looks like.
  - lostcolony 9y ago
    You prefer the Rule of Pai? I think I'd prefer the multiple court of appeals process to determine whether the FCC discharged its duty, rather than an uncontested decision by Pai that clearly goes against what the people want, in defiance of the duty the FCC is charged with.
    - pvnick 9y ago
      I prefer the rule of nobody but the consumer. That's what markets are for.
      - Spare_account 9y ago
        My understanding is that in most US cities there is only one choice of cable Internet provider so the consumer cannot choose a provider that offers neutral service. So the FCC is required to force the providers to comply with the will of the people. And they're not doing it.
      - shmerl 9y ago
        In case of monopolists, you get the rule of monopolists. Do you prefer that? That's part of what Net Neutrality is supposed to protect from.
      - metalliqaz 9y ago
        Yeah, that would be great in the Ayn Rand's fantasy land. Unfortunately, back here in reality there is no ISP market. Consumers have little to no choice, and vertically integrated mega-corps have a stranglehold on everything. We all rely on our representative government to stand up to a titan like Comcast.
      - devnonymous 9y ago
        Yep, but worth reminding you at this point that in this case you are the commodity, the companies are the consumers and the Internet is the market. Free market will make more sense if you think about it that way.
      - Teknoman117 9y ago
  - metalliqaz 9y ago
    You don't understand the word "oligarchy".
    - qubex 9y ago
      Kritarchy — rule by judges: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritarchy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritarchy
      - metalliqaz 9y ago
        In the context of his comment, as well has his other posts, it is clear to me that he objects to judges essentially limiting what people can and can't do. In my opinion, it's implied he applies that to those currently in power and their assumed mandate. Unfortunately for that argument, we don't have rule by judges by any stretch. Judges (and police/prosecutors/etc) do have lots of power, but they are still bound by the law and therefore checked by the legislative branch of the government, should it come to that.
- schoen 9y ago
  The courts don't have to examine whether or not they think a rule change is in the public interest, nor would they have to conclude that the public interest is proven by what position got the most individual comments in support of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States)#Standard_of_judicial_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(... They could conclude that an agency unreasonably ignored specific arguments in public comments, but probably not that the fact that the agency wasn't swayed by the volume of the comments was unreasonable.
  - shmerl 9y ago
    If the arguments were repeated multiple times, it's easier to point out that FCC intentionally ignored them, and it's not "we didn't notice" situation.
kevin_b_er 9y ago
Pai, like most Republicans, have repeatedly shown their view that the profit of a corporation is always more important than human interests.
pvnick 9y ago
I'm a consumer and I think this is a good thing. Can't make all the people happy all the time. Edit: Besides, government policies reflexively guided by consumer sentiment is called populism, which is dangerous.
- aaomidi 9y ago
  Please explain.
  - pvnick 9y ago
    Read this article by the brilliant Ben Shapiro: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/10/7-reasons-net-neutrality/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/10/7-reasons... Edit: To those knee-jerk rejecting the argument based on the Breitbart domain, besides being intellectually lazy, you should know that Ben Shapiro is a very well-respected author on matters of economics and politics (and indeed that Breitbart used to be a very respectable media outlet before the founder, Andrew Breitbart, passed away and the company was taken over by Steve Bannon)
    - digitalneal 9y ago
      Had to stop reading after this quote "ISPs generally do not discriminate against highly-trafficked websites. If they did – holding a figurative gun to the head of those websites by throttling back speed to those websites – consumers would dump those ISPs in favor of others." I'd believe this true if any of the large cities I have lived in actually had competition between ISPs.
      - pvnick 9y ago
        Ok well you made it about 10% through the article - at least you made a modest attempt at understanding the other side of the debate.
        digitalneal 9y ago

joeblow9999 9y ago

"The Internet was not broken in 2015" before the rules were imposed, Pai said today before the vote. "We were not living in a digital dystopia. Nonetheless, the FCC that year succumbed to partisan pressure from the White House and changed course." 100% accurate

bwanab 9y ago
Right. And 100% wrong. By 2015, it was clear that the telcos and cable operators were determined to use their positions to extract more rent. So while it might be true that up until 2015 the internet was not broken, there's no guarantee that will continue now that they've been given the greenlight.
- zerocrates 9y ago
  There's also the minor detail that there were different net neutrality rules in force from 2010 to 2014, before they were largely struck down in Verizon v. FCC
AbrahamParangi 9y ago
The statement remains accurate if you change 2015 to 2017. What's really going on is we have a disagreement between relatively young, innovative tech companies and relatively old, relatively monopolistic communications conglomerates. The question at hand is whether it's better for most folks if the tech companies or the communications conglomerates get their way.

ph0rd 9y ago

The Problem: Regulatory agencies not directly beholden to anyone. The FCC, EPA, OSHA, etc. act essentially unilaterally. This is a huge overreach. Second, regional monopolies on telecom services granted by the state. Third, the fact that people don't recognize the first two as a problem. The solution: Break up regulatory agencies, do away with regional monopolies, and deregulate telecoms. Let the market sort it out, because the market is more beholden to consumer interests than the state ever will or can be. Not the solution: more regulation on top of other regulations to prevent the problems caused by regulation.

CoryG89 9y ago
Which regulations do you attribute to having caused the formation of monopolies?
jackmott 9y ago
First you fix the problem of ISP monopolies then. First you do that, then you can get rid of or relax net neutrality rules.
blackguardx 9y ago
If you broke up the FCC, the wireless spectrum would get polluted and wireless device performance would be spotty at best.
- falcolas 9y ago
  Not to mention the loss of content restrictions - such as nudity or profanity on primetime TV.
cycrutchfield 9y ago
It's like you don't even understand the concept of a natural monopoly.
tdb7893 9y ago
The problem is that in many situations the market doesn't operate efficiently at all in it's natural state. There's a long litany of reasons markets are inefficient (imperfect information on either side, externalities, and monopolies, just to name a few). Interventions, such as regulations are there to protect the consumers in the case of these market failures. In this case a competative market protects consumers much better than a monopolistic one so regulations that foster a more competative market would be able to protect consumers better than no regulations. I'm not saying that these specfic regulations are amazing but there is definitely a good theoretical framework for regulations being good for consumers in certain cases.

zerocrates 9y ago

> But Chairman Ajit Pai is making no promises about reinstating the two-year-old net neutrality rules that forbid ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful Internet content, or prioritizing content in exchange for payment. Well, that's good, because it would make no sense if he was promising that. The current net neutrality rules from 2015 only work in the context of Title II classification; that's why they went together. The FCC already tried to do net neutrality under some more tenuous authority it had back in 2010, and it lost at the D.C. Circuit. This is why we got reclassification in the first place.

zerocrates 9y ago
The article does actually say basically this much further down, when discussing Clyburn's dissent: > Despite seeking public comment on whether to impose new net neutrality rules without the use of Title II, the Republican majority did not propose the use of any specific legal authority that could enforce such rules

jsat 9y ago

My hope is that the highly tech dependent area I live in (Seattle) will force the market to keep an open internet. We have enough competition to ensure that, I think. However, that won't be the case for millions of Americans across the country. This is awful, but I think the outrage will eventually remedy the problem if telecoms overstep. Though telecoms may try more subtle means of manipulating traffic, which could be worse. Ugh.

abandonliberty 9y ago
Insufficient people will really notice, care, or act in synchrony to enact change as long as the abuses don't get overly egregious. This is how democracy works.
greglindahl 9y ago
I live in a big apartment building in downtown Palo Alto, and I have the choice of cable company (fast) or phone company (slow). The % of Americans who have more choices is quite tiny... you're extremely lucky if you have even 2 fast choices! That said, it would be awesome if Seattle did have enough competition to have a completely different market from elsewhere in the US: imagine the cable company trying to explain why they have wildly different offerings in places with and without competition.
- existencebox 9y ago
  That is, literally, the current situation. I moved from Baltimore to Seattle. I paid for Comcast for a time in both locations (in Baltimore it was the ONLY option, in Seattle you usually have 1-1.5 other options) At least the year I moved, I went from 69$ for ~55 down 5 up to 50$ for something like 100 down 10 up. (Yes it was the "promotion rate" but I played that game on both sides.) Over the years Comcast played the same "Ratchet up the rates" game, and eventually I got a house specifically with the mindset to 'not have comcast' and moved to an area with I believe 3 broadband choices. I now pay 50$ for I believe ~400 down (was originally 250 but they've been sneakily upgrading their system, wave is fucking amazing). On top of that service reliability is MUCH better, support is _fantastic_ and I have much less concern that my ISP is doing something scummy. Monoplistic local practices taking away any incentive for consumer friendly offerings is not a hypothetical, it is the reality for large swaths of america.

doubt_me 9y ago

Oh cool another discussion Hacker News can censor with flags.

natermer 9y ago

Red herring. Title II is how the FCC protected the AT&T monopoly. Due to various regulatory goals (such as controlling telecommunications for cold war purposes) FCC found it much easier to deal with and regulate one corporate entity then a wide variety of different corporations. Title II gives the FCC authority to regulate pricing in peering agreements and because of this they were able to essentially price AT&T's competitors out of the market and prevent new companies from being created. There is no reason to believe that Title II common carrier rules would improve competition or prevent companies like Comcast from continuing to own huge government-protected regional monopolies. More bad regulation is the wrong answer to the problem of bad regulation.

greglindahl 9y ago
... the FCC said it would never use Title II to regulate Internet prices, and they did not. Nor have I ever seen anyone say that Title II was going to solve all of the problems caused by the un-competitive ISP market. So you're vigorously beating a strawman.
- natermer 9y ago
  Uhh... The ENTIRE POINT of Title II is common carrier. Common carrier means they get to regulate peering costs. They don't regulate the costs ISP charge you personally. They regulate how peering agreements between businesses work. That's why they call it 'common carrier'. That's the whole point to establishing common carrier in the first place. It gives FCC rights to step into a dispute and regulate. What other disputes are going to happen other then ones over pricing? > Title II was going to solve all of the problems caused by the un-competitive ISP market. It's not going to solve any of the problems and it never will.
opo 9y ago
The FCC said at the start: "...As part of this decision, the Commission also refrains (or "forbears") from enforcing provisions of Title II that are not relevant to modern broadband service. " The rules they were enforcing were: "Bright Line Rules: No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates." I don't think three is a lot of evidence we will gain more competition or improve the quality/quantity of broadband by giving them up.

rc_kas 9y ago

R.I.P. Internet. It was great while it lasted. I did love you.

Pharylon 9y ago

When this kind of thing happens it's important to remember that both sides are exactly the same.

ape4 9y ago

I would actually go to a live protest about this.

blackflame7000 9y ago

Zero-Rating has always struck me as a blatant loophole in net neutrality. If an ISP throttles bandwidth on resources that are not zero rated due to overages, aren't they effectively skirting the core principle of net-neutrality? Bigger companies can buy more media and thus zero-rate more content than the little guys. This was the driving force between the AT&T/Time-Warner merger.

otoburb 9y ago
Zero rating is about billing (i.e. giving away for free certain content), not bandwidth throttling. It used to be called 1-800-Data in the early days because carriers likened the concept to toll free phone lines. Conceptually, consumers aren't up in arms about toll free phone lines. I'm surprised Pai hasn't brought that up yet. Bandwidth throttling specific sites would be a more serious concern (à la Netflix and Verizon). Bandwidth throttling certain types of content (e.g. steaming video) seems to be the border that carriers are willing to push.
- blackflame7000 9y ago
  I see what you're saying with the toll-free analogy but it seems fairly common for ISPs to throttle speeds after a monthly cap has been reached. Since the throttling wouldn't apply to zero-rated services(ie their own) isn't the end effect an unfair degradation in competitors services?
  - otoburb 9y ago
    I understand why you are making the leap assuming zero-rated services would somehow be exempt from throttling, but that is outside the scope of zero-rating. In cases of throttling (cap thresholds, adverse network conditions, etc), all content (zero-rated or otherwise) should be throttled. If zero-rated services are exempt then that's a whole new kettle of fish. The idea of selective, named, service throttling vs. blanket throttling based on service type is surely bouncing around within network operator groups due to the Title II FCC vote, but that could apply whether content is zero-rated or not. Selective throttling != zero-rating.

r34yll2k 9y ago

We will engineer around it.

rocky1138 9y ago

How does this affect the rest of the world?

Pica_soO 9y ago

The invisible hand can not fix this. Its currently busy repairing a chinese ventilator i bought to fight the heat. Ran for five minutes, then the hand got stuck in it, loosing several fingertips and burning itself on the e-motor. Its a horrible sight, invisible blood, invisible bone pieces everywhere, and this small thing in the cage i wont let out until it gets that damned thing fixed. Seems the market radialinzkis are desperately trying to create good points for the socialism of tomorrow.

iamleppert 9y ago

Do we really think that huge tech companies like Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Microsoft, Google and Facebook, whom are not ISPs, but could be significantly impacted by a less open Internet will let this happen? These companies have collectively far more power than Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T and Verizon, who really have been reduced to a bunch of "dumb pipes". These companies have proven time and time again they are incapable of creating either consumer services, content, applications, ecosystems, or hardware. And as new wireless standards take hold that are far more powerful and easy to deploy, their control will be greatly weakening. When you no longer need to lay significant fiber or have a lot of last-mile infrastructure to consumers, what value or leverage could they possibly have?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

1maginary 9y ago

Maybe someone could automate a way to compare tests made on e.g. Netflix' speed test site[0] and speedtest[1]. If there's a huge discrepancy, then it'd be fair to conclude that the ISP is throttling specific connections. [0] https://fast.com https://fast.com [1] https://speedtest.net https://speedtest.net

norea-armozel 9y ago

I wonder how long before some left leaning NGOs build their own zero-rated Basics-clone which then the GOP will collectively clutch pearls in horror. It'll be amusing to see them try to make a law that's patently dumb that even conservative judges will strike it down.