5 ms·

Don't worry, that is exactly what they'll end up doing. Hope you have alternatives.

by anotherbrownguy 9y ago

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.

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.