4 ms·

It's unfair to ISPs (some of it is their own doing like introducing "unlimited data" purely based on the assumption that most users wouldn't use their data at t

It's unfair to ISPs (some of it is their own doing like introducing "unlimited data" purely based on the assumption that most users wouldn't use their data at the same time, which companies like Google and Netflix capitalized on by building high bandwidth services on top of it) but since Google and Netflix are capable of manipulating consent of internet users and will not let FCC rollback "net neutrality", ISPs will have to stop innovating, keep giving terrible service and pass their costs to consumers.

colanderman 9y ago
ISPs are always free to throttle all services. Or (gasp) stop lying about so-called "unlimited" plans.
- anotherbrownguy 9y ago
  Don't worry, that is exactly what they'll end up doing. Hope you have alternatives.
  - shuntress 9y ago
    Net Neutrality is the idea that ISP cannot target only specific addresses/services when they throttle your connection.
    - anotherbrownguy 9y ago
      I know what Google and Netflix want to tell you what it is but I also know what it actually is (https://www.fcc.gov/document/restoring-internet-freedom-notice-proposed-rulemaking https://www.fcc.gov/document/restoring-internet-freedom-noti...).
      - matt4077 9y ago
        That's actually a fun read. Just loom at this section where they are making an absurd logical Yoga move to get ISPs classified as "information providers" and not a "telecommunication provider": In contrast, Internet service providers do not appear to offer “telecommunications,” i.e., “the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received,” to their users. For one, broadband Internet users do not typically specify the “points” between and among which information is sent online. Instead, routing decisions are based on the architecture of the network, not on consumers’ instructions, and consumers are often unaware of where online content is stored. So instead they're classifying ISPs as "content providers", when any plain reading of the law can only result in the conclusion that a "content provider" is supposed to be a third party such as a newspaper's website or HN.
        outsidetheparty 9y ago
        It's a truly ridiculous argument. Users of telephone service don't specify the routing of their calls either, yet somehow that fact is sufficient to transform an ISP from a carrier to a "content provider".
    - benlorenzetti 9y ago
      This idea is the problem with net neutrality. The reason people support net neutrality is that ISPs are monopolies even more so than Google, Facebook, etc and we understand that monopolies are unfair, corrupt, renters, etc. Therefore it easy to be blinded into supporting rules that purport to punish ISPs, even if the rule itself is illogical and loaded for unintended consequences. Reasonable people can oppose Net Neutrality for the economic illogicality of an enterprise not being allowed to negotiate prices with its customers. What people want is laws punishing monopoly ISPs. No one cares if Google has to pay a fraction of their ad revenue to help pay for serving them bloated ad data they didn't even ask for.
      - matt4077 9y ago
        > [..] economic illogicality of an enterprise not being allowed to negotiate prices with its customers. See, that's where your argument makes no sense. ISPs don't want to argue prices with their customers. They want to extort businesses that have never decided to be their customers. And you're assuming peoples' motives in the face of these people telling you that you're wrong: I actually don't have grudge with my local ISP. What is scaring me shitless is a future where the internet is just Cable TV, and where the chance to have an idea and get it out there essentially unhindered is dead, because selling your fun little game or whatever would require you to sign agreements with every single ISP in every single market that you want to target. This isn't about google. Google, Facebook, and Amazon are large enough that throttling them or blocking them would lead to a customer revolt. The large fish will be the last to ever pay. This is about the business you and I don't yet even know about, because it doesn't exist, or because it's small. No customer will ever complain if their ISP blocks your new idea, because they will never know about it.
        benlorenzetti 9y ago
        > See, that's where your argument makes no sense. ISPs don't want to argue prices with their customers. They want to extort businesses that have never decided to be their customers. In every willing exchange of data, both the transmitter and receiver are the ISPs' customer. > And you're assuming peoples' motives ... because selling your fun little game or whatever would require you to sign agreements with every single ISP in every single market that you want to target. > ...Google, Facebook, and Amazon are large enough that throttling them or blocking them would lead to a customer revolt. > This is about business you and I don't yet even know about, because it doesn't exist, or because it's small. This argument is clearly all about our mistrust of monopolies. You clearly don't trust ISPs as a whole, presumably because there is naturally no competition. If you and I don't know a small site exists yet, how is the ISP gonna know? And small businesses aren't going to be targets, for the same reason the IRS doesn't target the small fish with its big guns. Setting the economics aside, if one is worried about ISPs ability to target free speech by surcharging a particular site, then how is getting the federal government more involved the answer?
  - jcadam 9y ago
    AT&T Uverse has instituted a 1TB monthly cap on residential internet service. Unless you also buy TV service, in which case it's unlimited. Clearly they're targeting customers who want to stream all of their TV via sling etc. with this. Now, the AT&T small business-class internet (which I've just recently switched to) is still unlimited, though it does cost more.
    - topspin 9y ago
      "AT&T small business-class internet" Charter/Spectrum has a similar "business" class service. Yes, it costs more. I get a lower contention ratio, no caps and fast state-side customer service. My complaints are poor upstream speed and frequent, brief, early morning outages when they service the network.
- frou_dh 9y ago
  Maybe the word unlimited should just be expunged from the dictionary, because so many real-world uses of it are vulnerable to deconstruction.
shuntress 9y ago
Why not give good service and pass costs to customers?
- aaomidi 9y ago
  Americans are already paying a shit ton for internet access. Any increase in price is artificial.
- anotherbrownguy 9y ago
  Because they think they still have an option to pass the cost to companies like Google and Netflix and then use that money to increase their business and hence have an opportunity to provide good service... which is much better than investing in better infrastructure and customer service and then trying to get customers to pay more. Once they realize that internet companies will continue to use propaganda and not let it happen, they will have to take another route... which will be to keep providing the same service and keep maintaining their monopoly.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  Why? 1. They don't have to give good service. Most are monopolies. 2. They already do pass all costs, and all profit margins created, to customers. 3. They want higher profit margins than currently being squeezed. 4. They want more entities to pay them. New classes of customers. 5. Deeper the pockets and fewer the paying entities, easier it would be for ISPs. HBO charges the Cable providers, for long long time HBO didn't allow individuals to buy directly from them, subscribing through a Cable provider was the only option. It allowed HBO to have a simple money supply from big entities with deep pockets which were easy to control. HBO could simply terminate one cable provider. Comcast can simply terminate preferential treatment to Vimeo if they didn't pay. Much easier than sending 4th reminder and collection notice to 65 year old Mrs. Smith.
- bvinc 9y ago
  Because ISPs in the US have monopolies over their areas. There is no incentive to provide good service when you have no competition.
cjslep 9y ago
Maybe running with net neutrality should be the next ISP innovation? It's clear that there's enough consumer market demand that they could make money from it, I don't understand where the ISP's tunnel vision of "only way to innovate is if net neutrality is killed" comes from.
- benlorenzetti 9y ago
  If there is a law or federal rule, that usually implies there are not sufficient market forces behind whatever we still think should/shouldn't be done.
  - orthecreedence 9y ago
    Or it implies that the public wants things a certain way and they are tired of battling it out with their idiotic providers (especially in a market where most people only have one option). Market forces do not affect large telecoms.
    - benlorenzetti 9y ago
      You're version is more specific. Perhaps I was too general and clunky.
- bvinc 9y ago
  Consumer demand is not a factor. ISPs in the US have a monopoly over areas and can effectively prevent new competitors from coming in. There is no innovation. The only plan is to extract the most amount of money from customers while spending the least amount of money to maintain the system. Killing net neutrality allows them to extract even more money from both sides: customers and content providers.
bvinc 9y ago
I just want to point out that this view isn't necessarily wrong, but it's one-sided and reads like talking points from an ISP lobbyist. You can view Google and Netflix as "capitalizing on ISPs". You could also view it as the ISPs customers demanding more bandwidth from their ISP that they pay. ISPs like to talk about their "innovations", but what does that even mean? Personally, I want them to provide me with a high bandwidth link to the internet at low cost. The less they do, the happier I'll be. What innovations do you expect to happen if net neutrality is rolled back? I expect that every ISP will threaten to deprioritize traffic from every content provider unless they pay up. I believe it'll lead to a worse internet experience overall for internet users and raise barriers for new content providers to be able to compete on the internet. That's not the kind of innovation I want. It's been well established that terrible service and high costs are related to how much of a monopoly the ISP has in the area. Many areas of the US only have 1 or 2 choices of ISP. This shouldn't come as a surprise to any free market capitalist. Why would an ISP upgrade a network or lower prices when it has no competition? Low competition means that consumers lose. When Google Fiber wants to expand to an area, the established ISPs fight hard to make sure they can't compete. If they do reach an area, that area immediately experiences network upgrades and reductions in prices. A company doesn't just "pass their costs to consumers" and tack on a set percentage for their own profits. A company's job is to increase the profits for it's shareholders. If a CEO is not doing everything legally within his power to increase the profits for shareholders, he can be replaced. Prices for services and money spent on maintenance are set based on what they've determined will net them the maximum amount of profit. If they managed to extract even more money from content providers, what motive do they have to lower prices or upgrade service for customers in a monopoly area? None. None whatsoever. Sometimes the government has to intervene in a market (like anti-trust laws) in order to create a fair market for companies to compete. And that's OK and every free-market conservative should recognize that fact and agree that it's a good idea if they just think about it for a while.
- benlorenzetti 9y ago
  I am against NN but even from my point of view the innovation argument is 50% duplicitous. I don't expect big monopoly ISPs to implement these changes with content providers in a way that doesn't disrupt end users' access. But I still don't think we should have universally outlaw this for all ISPs for all time, present and future, including nice little ones answerable to the people of a city or region. The other duplicity is that this is not an ``innovation''. Please Mr. Lobbist. Governments have been taxing economic transactions at both endpoints (buyer and seller) for millenia and the evil tax man has always triaged the taxed at some level where it is no longer economical to collect. If elected democrats (when NN was introduced) really wanted to help the consumer they would have done something to break up the monopoly ISPs, not this moral signaling rule says Google et. al. are less monopolistic than you so were going to pick their side. If republicans actually favored free markets they would follow up ending NN by doing the same. > Sometimes the government has to intervene in a market (like anti-trust laws) in order to create a fair market for companies to compete. And that's OK and every free-market conservative should recognize that fact and agree that it's a good idea if they just think about it for a while. No thinking required in this case, opposing government sponsored monopolies is obvious and shrinking those that must exist to the smallest possible size is too. Conservative federalism. Some conservatives have favorable views of private monopolies though (stating this as a fact, not a personal opinion) and presumably they have thought about it.

colanderman 9y ago

ISPs are always free to throttle all services. Or (gasp) stop lying about so-called "unlimited" plans.

anotherbrownguy 9y ago
Don't worry, that is exactly what they'll end up doing. Hope you have alternatives.
- shuntress 9y ago
  Net Neutrality is the idea that ISP cannot target only specific addresses/services when they throttle your connection.
  - anotherbrownguy 9y ago
    I know what Google and Netflix want to tell you what it is but I also know what it actually is (https://www.fcc.gov/document/restoring-internet-freedom-notice-proposed-rulemaking https://www.fcc.gov/document/restoring-internet-freedom-noti...).
    - matt4077 9y ago
      That's actually a fun read. Just loom at this section where they are making an absurd logical Yoga move to get ISPs classified as "information providers" and not a "telecommunication provider": In contrast, Internet service providers do not appear to offer “telecommunications,” i.e., “the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received,” to their users. For one, broadband Internet users do not typically specify the “points” between and among which information is sent online. Instead, routing decisions are based on the architecture of the network, not on consumers’ instructions, and consumers are often unaware of where online content is stored. So instead they're classifying ISPs as "content providers", when any plain reading of the law can only result in the conclusion that a "content provider" is supposed to be a third party such as a newspaper's website or HN.
      - outsidetheparty 9y ago
        It's a truly ridiculous argument. Users of telephone service don't specify the routing of their calls either, yet somehow that fact is sufficient to transform an ISP from a carrier to a "content provider".
  - benlorenzetti 9y ago
    This idea is the problem with net neutrality. The reason people support net neutrality is that ISPs are monopolies even more so than Google, Facebook, etc and we understand that monopolies are unfair, corrupt, renters, etc. Therefore it easy to be blinded into supporting rules that purport to punish ISPs, even if the rule itself is illogical and loaded for unintended consequences. Reasonable people can oppose Net Neutrality for the economic illogicality of an enterprise not being allowed to negotiate prices with its customers. What people want is laws punishing monopoly ISPs. No one cares if Google has to pay a fraction of their ad revenue to help pay for serving them bloated ad data they didn't even ask for.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      > [..] economic illogicality of an enterprise not being allowed to negotiate prices with its customers. See, that's where your argument makes no sense. ISPs don't want to argue prices with their customers. They want to extort businesses that have never decided to be their customers. And you're assuming peoples' motives in the face of these people telling you that you're wrong: I actually don't have grudge with my local ISP. What is scaring me shitless is a future where the internet is just Cable TV, and where the chance to have an idea and get it out there essentially unhindered is dead, because selling your fun little game or whatever would require you to sign agreements with every single ISP in every single market that you want to target. This isn't about google. Google, Facebook, and Amazon are large enough that throttling them or blocking them would lead to a customer revolt. The large fish will be the last to ever pay. This is about the business you and I don't yet even know about, because it doesn't exist, or because it's small. No customer will ever complain if their ISP blocks your new idea, because they will never know about it.
      - benlorenzetti 9y ago
        > See, that's where your argument makes no sense. ISPs don't want to argue prices with their customers. They want to extort businesses that have never decided to be their customers. In every willing exchange of data, both the transmitter and receiver are the ISPs' customer. > And you're assuming peoples' motives ... because selling your fun little game or whatever would require you to sign agreements with every single ISP in every single market that you want to target. > ...Google, Facebook, and Amazon are large enough that throttling them or blocking them would lead to a customer revolt. > This is about business you and I don't yet even know about, because it doesn't exist, or because it's small. This argument is clearly all about our mistrust of monopolies. You clearly don't trust ISPs as a whole, presumably because there is naturally no competition. If you and I don't know a small site exists yet, how is the ISP gonna know? And small businesses aren't going to be targets, for the same reason the IRS doesn't target the small fish with its big guns. Setting the economics aside, if one is worried about ISPs ability to target free speech by surcharging a particular site, then how is getting the federal government more involved the answer?
- jcadam 9y ago
  AT&T Uverse has instituted a 1TB monthly cap on residential internet service. Unless you also buy TV service, in which case it's unlimited. Clearly they're targeting customers who want to stream all of their TV via sling etc. with this. Now, the AT&T small business-class internet (which I've just recently switched to) is still unlimited, though it does cost more.
  - topspin 9y ago
    "AT&T small business-class internet" Charter/Spectrum has a similar "business" class service. Yes, it costs more. I get a lower contention ratio, no caps and fast state-side customer service. My complaints are poor upstream speed and frequent, brief, early morning outages when they service the network.
frou_dh 9y ago
Maybe the word unlimited should just be expunged from the dictionary, because so many real-world uses of it are vulnerable to deconstruction.

shuntress 9y ago

Why not give good service and pass costs to customers?

aaomidi 9y ago
Americans are already paying a shit ton for internet access. Any increase in price is artificial.
anotherbrownguy 9y ago
Because they think they still have an option to pass the cost to companies like Google and Netflix and then use that money to increase their business and hence have an opportunity to provide good service... which is much better than investing in better infrastructure and customer service and then trying to get customers to pay more. Once they realize that internet companies will continue to use propaganda and not let it happen, they will have to take another route... which will be to keep providing the same service and keep maintaining their monopoly.
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Why? 1. They don't have to give good service. Most are monopolies. 2. They already do pass all costs, and all profit margins created, to customers. 3. They want higher profit margins than currently being squeezed. 4. They want more entities to pay them. New classes of customers. 5. Deeper the pockets and fewer the paying entities, easier it would be for ISPs. HBO charges the Cable providers, for long long time HBO didn't allow individuals to buy directly from them, subscribing through a Cable provider was the only option. It allowed HBO to have a simple money supply from big entities with deep pockets which were easy to control. HBO could simply terminate one cable provider. Comcast can simply terminate preferential treatment to Vimeo if they didn't pay. Much easier than sending 4th reminder and collection notice to 65 year old Mrs. Smith.
bvinc 9y ago
Because ISPs in the US have monopolies over their areas. There is no incentive to provide good service when you have no competition.

cjslep 9y ago

Maybe running with net neutrality should be the next ISP innovation? It's clear that there's enough consumer market demand that they could make money from it, I don't understand where the ISP's tunnel vision of "only way to innovate is if net neutrality is killed" comes from.

benlorenzetti 9y ago
If there is a law or federal rule, that usually implies there are not sufficient market forces behind whatever we still think should/shouldn't be done.
- orthecreedence 9y ago
  Or it implies that the public wants things a certain way and they are tired of battling it out with their idiotic providers (especially in a market where most people only have one option). Market forces do not affect large telecoms.
  - benlorenzetti 9y ago
    You're version is more specific. Perhaps I was too general and clunky.
bvinc 9y ago
Consumer demand is not a factor. ISPs in the US have a monopoly over areas and can effectively prevent new competitors from coming in. There is no innovation. The only plan is to extract the most amount of money from customers while spending the least amount of money to maintain the system. Killing net neutrality allows them to extract even more money from both sides: customers and content providers.

bvinc 9y ago

I just want to point out that this view isn't necessarily wrong, but it's one-sided and reads like talking points from an ISP lobbyist. You can view Google and Netflix as "capitalizing on ISPs". You could also view it as the ISPs customers demanding more bandwidth from their ISP that they pay. ISPs like to talk about their "innovations", but what does that even mean? Personally, I want them to provide me with a high bandwidth link to the internet at low cost. The less they do, the happier I'll be. What innovations do you expect to happen if net neutrality is rolled back? I expect that every ISP will threaten to deprioritize traffic from every content provider unless they pay up. I believe it'll lead to a worse internet experience overall for internet users and raise barriers for new content providers to be able to compete on the internet. That's not the kind of innovation I want. It's been well established that terrible service and high costs are related to how much of a monopoly the ISP has in the area. Many areas of the US only have 1 or 2 choices of ISP. This shouldn't come as a surprise to any free market capitalist. Why would an ISP upgrade a network or lower prices when it has no competition? Low competition means that consumers lose. When Google Fiber wants to expand to an area, the established ISPs fight hard to make sure they can't compete. If they do reach an area, that area immediately experiences network upgrades and reductions in prices. A company doesn't just "pass their costs to consumers" and tack on a set percentage for their own profits. A company's job is to increase the profits for it's shareholders. If a CEO is not doing everything legally within his power to increase the profits for shareholders, he can be replaced. Prices for services and money spent on maintenance are set based on what they've determined will net them the maximum amount of profit. If they managed to extract even more money from content providers, what motive do they have to lower prices or upgrade service for customers in a monopoly area? None. None whatsoever. Sometimes the government has to intervene in a market (like anti-trust laws) in order to create a fair market for companies to compete. And that's OK and every free-market conservative should recognize that fact and agree that it's a good idea if they just think about it for a while.

benlorenzetti 9y ago
I am against NN but even from my point of view the innovation argument is 50% duplicitous. I don't expect big monopoly ISPs to implement these changes with content providers in a way that doesn't disrupt end users' access. But I still don't think we should have universally outlaw this for all ISPs for all time, present and future, including nice little ones answerable to the people of a city or region. The other duplicity is that this is not an ``innovation''. Please Mr. Lobbist. Governments have been taxing economic transactions at both endpoints (buyer and seller) for millenia and the evil tax man has always triaged the taxed at some level where it is no longer economical to collect. If elected democrats (when NN was introduced) really wanted to help the consumer they would have done something to break up the monopoly ISPs, not this moral signaling rule says Google et. al. are less monopolistic than you so were going to pick their side. If republicans actually favored free markets they would follow up ending NN by doing the same. > Sometimes the government has to intervene in a market (like anti-trust laws) in order to create a fair market for companies to compete. And that's OK and every free-market conservative should recognize that fact and agree that it's a good idea if they just think about it for a while. No thinking required in this case, opposing government sponsored monopolies is obvious and shrinking those that must exist to the smallest possible size is too. Conservative federalism. Some conservatives have favorable views of private monopolies though (stating this as a fact, not a personal opinion) and presumably they have thought about it.