4 ms·

Picture this: The "Google Search" package with Comcast is $8/month. Or, you can get "Comcast Search" for free! Comcast search is shitty and conveniently doesn't

by tbabb 9y ago

Picture this: The "Google Search" package with Comcast is $8/month. Or, you can get "Comcast Search" for free! Comcast search is shitty and conveniently doesn't "find" results that conflict with Comcast's business or political interests. But hey! The free market and invisible hand will sort everything out! /s

webXL 9y ago
Buyer beware and you get what you pay for. Didn't your parents teach you that? No? How about your school? Hmmm... What did they teach? Are they going to be able to filter facebook posts/ads "that conflict with Comcast's business or political interests" too? Out of youtube videos? Developing and maintaining that technology starts to get very expensive. If their political interests are really that nefarious, then I highly doubt they will be able to stay in business for very long. Why not address the real-world "nefarity" which is lobbying governments for special favors at the expense of the competition?
- nikdaheratik 9y ago
  They can't filter the posts, but they can make it so that the data coming from those sites end up coming in at such a slow speed that they're pretty much unusable. And that would be just fine under the new regulations. > Why not address the real-world "nefarity" which is lobbying governments for special favors at the expense of the competition? Exactly who is lobbying for special favors here? From what I can tell, it's the big telco companies and not anyone else. The only people that stand to gain from this are the shareholders of AT&T, Time-Warner, etc. It's like people forget the BS that Ma Bell pulled at the end of the last century so we gotta relive it again.
  - webXL 9y ago
    > And that would be just fine under the new regulations. But would it be good for business? A lot of what is already legal is not good for business, even though it might appear to be in the short term. Raising your prices by 100% is perfectly legal. Why aren't we trying to prevent that hypothetical?
    - tbabb 9y ago
      Raising prices for all information: Fine (as long as you're not a monopoly, which unfortunately many ISPs are). Raising prices for some information: Exerting control over what people see and can say; exerting control over the market and preventing fair competition. NOT OK. The whole issue at hand.
      - webXL 9y ago
        > Exerting control over what people see and can say Who has done this? If monopolies can just raise prices, why would they bother only doing it for certain information? Seems like a BIG money loser!
        tbabb 9y ago
        Because differential pricing gives you power over human behavior, allowing you to make even more money. For example, by influencing public discourse and attaining regulatory capture.
        webXL 9y ago
        > allowing you to make even more money Is there any evidence to support that claim?
wils1245 9y ago
This is an extremely ironic example. Google controls what content you see more than any ISP ever will, with or without net neutrality. If anything, this FCC change will cement Google's dominance. They'll pay some rent to ISPs to maintain their priority lane, something an incumbent won't be able to do.

by tbabb 9y ago

webXL 9y ago

Buyer beware and you get what you pay for. Didn't your parents teach you that? No? How about your school? Hmmm... What did they teach? Are they going to be able to filter facebook posts/ads "that conflict with Comcast's business or political interests" too? Out of youtube videos? Developing and maintaining that technology starts to get very expensive. If their political interests are really that nefarious, then I highly doubt they will be able to stay in business for very long. Why not address the real-world "nefarity" which is lobbying governments for special favors at the expense of the competition?

nikdaheratik 9y ago
They can't filter the posts, but they can make it so that the data coming from those sites end up coming in at such a slow speed that they're pretty much unusable. And that would be just fine under the new regulations. > Why not address the real-world "nefarity" which is lobbying governments for special favors at the expense of the competition? Exactly who is lobbying for special favors here? From what I can tell, it's the big telco companies and not anyone else. The only people that stand to gain from this are the shareholders of AT&T, Time-Warner, etc. It's like people forget the BS that Ma Bell pulled at the end of the last century so we gotta relive it again.
- webXL 9y ago
  > And that would be just fine under the new regulations. But would it be good for business? A lot of what is already legal is not good for business, even though it might appear to be in the short term. Raising your prices by 100% is perfectly legal. Why aren't we trying to prevent that hypothetical?
  - tbabb 9y ago
    Raising prices for all information: Fine (as long as you're not a monopoly, which unfortunately many ISPs are). Raising prices for some information: Exerting control over what people see and can say; exerting control over the market and preventing fair competition. NOT OK. The whole issue at hand.
    - webXL 9y ago
      > Exerting control over what people see and can say Who has done this? If monopolies can just raise prices, why would they bother only doing it for certain information? Seems like a BIG money loser!
      - tbabb 9y ago
        Because differential pricing gives you power over human behavior, allowing you to make even more money. For example, by influencing public discourse and attaining regulatory capture.
        webXL 9y ago
        > allowing you to make even more money Is there any evidence to support that claim?

wils1245 9y ago

This is an extremely ironic example. Google controls what content you see more than any ISP ever will, with or without net neutrality. If anything, this FCC change will cement Google's dominance. They'll pay some rent to ISPs to maintain their priority lane, something an incumbent won't be able to do.