4 ms·

Wow. If my cable company (who I use only for internet access) decides to change pricing and it ends up costing me more to watch netflix (this includes if netfli

by jrs235 9y ago

Wow. If my cable company (who I use only for internet access) decides to change pricing and it ends up costing me more to watch netflix (this includes if netflix increases its prices due to the cable company pushing back and charging netflix) then I will cancel both. I'll save more money and be free from the internet at home. I suppose that really is truly "Internet Freedom"!

digitalsushi 9y ago
i'd be annoyed if i had to pay more for specific things, but i'll be livid if they can accomplish a form of censorship with the same
dmix 9y ago
> then I will cancel both. Which is exactly why it won't happen even if they were given the option... Everyone would flock to the ISPs who didn't do this. Or to technology options such as encryption and VPNs to circumvent it, while still using the cheaper packages. Selective internet packages has been an incredibly unpopular idea among the public and has been for over a decade. I'm not sure why people think the only thing that has held ISPs back from doing this is a 3yr old FTC regulation. Not to mention no ISP in any other country has tried it either in the ~2+ decades broadband has been available.
- skywhopper 9y ago
  You have a choice of ISPs?
  - amsheehan 9y ago
    I have one choice. I guess that's a choice.
    - CodeWriter23 9y ago
      You have two choices. Use the one ISP or not. /PaiLogic
  - NegativeLatency 9y ago
    I only have Comcast (coax) or Century Link (dsl). Basically there's no choice for me.
  - dmix 9y ago
    Yes, and if you are in the minority of people who don't this will incentivize every nerd in your area to create an ISP to offer unfiltered internet. But more importantly this doesn't depend on competition to make ISPs realize it's a bad idea either. The technical hurdles and push back from the tech companies, media, and public are being extremely underrated. This whole scenario is far more complicated than the ISPs making a greedy choice one day. Regardless I'd rather we regulate actual threats rather than hand-wavy hypothetical ones.
    - BinaryIdiot 9y ago
      > this will incentivize every nerd in your area to create an ISP to offer unfiltered internet Uh, how do you think these "nerds" are going to provide broadband? It's highly capital intensive to lay cabling so you're either going to piggyback off of someone like Comcast (who is going to charge you a lot) or you're going to piggyback off of someone's wireless which is also very expensive.
      - dmix 9y ago
        > you're either going to piggyback off of someone like Comcast That was the solution in Canada to generate competition, as the laying of cables was subsidized already, it was never a free market, as I'm sure the telecom industry in the US was hardly a free market... not sure why it's such a crazy idea. Why not focus on creating the basis for competition instead of centrally managing the intricacies of business... which has historically further limited competition. And if two companies engage in monopolistic practices, such as colluding to offer the same packages, that should be the domain of antitrust courts.
        BinaryIdiot 9y ago
        > not sure why it's such a crazy idea. It's not a _crazy_ idea (many have proposed such an idea) it's just not _possible_ in the United States in most areas.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      "Minority of people"? Most people are in a duopoly - the local telco, the local cableco. Not much in the way of competition.
- gervase 9y ago
  In many areas, there are only 1 (maybe 2) ISPs, so there is no viable alternative choice. It is also quite easy to detect whether someone is using a VPN, so I don't see why they wouldn't also dictate which protocols are permissible for each "package". This would be in-line with the packages offered which require the users to install MITM certs and/or use provider-based DNS servers in order to ensure tracking of all online traffic (in exchange for a "discount", of course).
- BinaryIdiot 9y ago
  > Everyone would flock to the ISPs who didn't do this. I wish I had your optimism. I live in the damn Bay Area and I have two choices for ISPs: 1. Comcast Cable 2. Dial-up....if I get my phone provided by Comcast Every placed I've lived at so far on the East and West coast, even in populated areas, I have usually just Comcast and, occasionally, a terrible DSL provider. That's it. It's quite common across the USA to have little or no choice in ISPs.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I'm not sure why people think the only that has held ISPs back from doing this is a 3yr old FTC regulation The FCC has been enforcing neutrality principles since 2004, through case-by-case actions through 2010, and through regulatory orders in 2010 and 2015. Even in the brief window between case-by-case enforcement being struck down in 2010 and the 2010 Open Internet Order and the longer window between the 2010 Order being struck down and the 2015 Order, there was a clear regulatory direction which gave non-neutral activity a high-risk of being unsustainable and thus not worth investing in. There is very little competition in ISPs in most areas and very high barriers to entry; it isn't competition that has been controlling non-neutral behavior.
  - dmix 9y ago
    Google or Amazon, or the rest of the tech industry, wouldn't be able to find the capital to build fast/unthrottled internet to eat Comcast's lunch? Alienating an entire industry and customer based like this would be a huge incentive for many parties, the market forces here are very much being downplayed. Not to mention the technical hurdles (encryption, VPNs) outside of the risk involved of convincing an executive board to engage in a PR disaster and expose themselves to the risk of Google competing with them. Besides has any company have tried to push TV-style packages, where they throttle websites depending on your package... and the FCC regulations stopped them? This is the scenario I keep reading about as what will happen if these regulations didn't exist. But I've yet to hear of an actual ISP trying this... Typically with regulations you have the industry pushing back against them because they want to do certain things. But I'm not seeing that here, multiple ISP have already claimed they have no interest in engaging in this type of throttling and I personally don't see how this would ever fly even if they did. Yes, cable companies have taken advantage of their political pull and monopoly positions to do some shady stuff but I'm very skeptical they could ever pull anything like that off in the internet. That's a whole different ball game than the tightly corporate controlled finite-content TV market and the tech industry and the public have clearly stated they won't sit idly by, regardless of regulations.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Google or Amazon, or the rest of the tech industry, wouldn't be able to find the capital to build fast/unthrottled internet to eat Comcast's lunch? Not while paying a Comcast (and other ISPs) tax to reach existing users, which then funds Comcast (et al.) staying ahead of them.
- bootlooped 9y ago
  > Everyone would flock to the ISPs who didn't do this Alternative scenario is that the major ISPs for a given area would conveniently move to this pricing model around the same time. The best example of this happening in real life, in a similar industry, is how Verizon and AT&T cell carrier offerings often move in sync in term of pricing and features, and not always to the benefit of the consumer.
  - dmix 9y ago
    > a given area would conveniently move to this pricing model around the same time. ISPs do this too. So does McDonalds and Burger King. And most other industries with oligopolies. Just because pricing shifts in sync doesn't mean they will all take a major risk in changing towards TV-style packages (Social media package to get Facebook/Twitter or Streaming package to get Netflix/Amazon Go!) also in sync. And it would have to be in sync. The only way it could work is if one takes a risk and customers don't immediately flock to the other one before they do it too. It's going to be incredibly unpopular and I highly doubt it will be synchronized without some illegal antitrust laws being violated before they realize it's not a good business decision. Besides I'm not against the idea of having regulation if they do try it. I'm just not convinced anyone will, successfully.
matt4077 9y ago
They will not change the end-user prices you pay. But they will charge the next netflix, or google, or github that comes around to get their website to you. That startup will never have a choice but to pay up, if they're interested in reaching their customers. They will be charged exactly what their per-customer profit is, minus one cent.
woodrowbarlow 9y ago
it isn't Netflix or Facebook or Google you should be worried about. it's the startup company trying to launch a competing service. imagine having to pay your ISP extra money for the privilege of using a privacy-oriented search tool like Duck Duck Go over Google... and none of the money you pay goes towards Duck Duck Go.

by jrs235 9y ago

digitalsushi 9y ago

i'd be annoyed if i had to pay more for specific things, but i'll be livid if they can accomplish a form of censorship with the same

dmix 9y ago

> then I will cancel both. Which is exactly why it won't happen even if they were given the option... Everyone would flock to the ISPs who didn't do this. Or to technology options such as encryption and VPNs to circumvent it, while still using the cheaper packages. Selective internet packages has been an incredibly unpopular idea among the public and has been for over a decade. I'm not sure why people think the only thing that has held ISPs back from doing this is a 3yr old FTC regulation. Not to mention no ISP in any other country has tried it either in the ~2+ decades broadband has been available.

skywhopper 9y ago
You have a choice of ISPs?
- amsheehan 9y ago
  I have one choice. I guess that's a choice.
  - CodeWriter23 9y ago
    You have two choices. Use the one ISP or not. /PaiLogic
- NegativeLatency 9y ago
  I only have Comcast (coax) or Century Link (dsl). Basically there's no choice for me.
- dmix 9y ago
  Yes, and if you are in the minority of people who don't this will incentivize every nerd in your area to create an ISP to offer unfiltered internet. But more importantly this doesn't depend on competition to make ISPs realize it's a bad idea either. The technical hurdles and push back from the tech companies, media, and public are being extremely underrated. This whole scenario is far more complicated than the ISPs making a greedy choice one day. Regardless I'd rather we regulate actual threats rather than hand-wavy hypothetical ones.
  - BinaryIdiot 9y ago
    > this will incentivize every nerd in your area to create an ISP to offer unfiltered internet Uh, how do you think these "nerds" are going to provide broadband? It's highly capital intensive to lay cabling so you're either going to piggyback off of someone like Comcast (who is going to charge you a lot) or you're going to piggyback off of someone's wireless which is also very expensive.
    - dmix 9y ago
      > you're either going to piggyback off of someone like Comcast That was the solution in Canada to generate competition, as the laying of cables was subsidized already, it was never a free market, as I'm sure the telecom industry in the US was hardly a free market... not sure why it's such a crazy idea. Why not focus on creating the basis for competition instead of centrally managing the intricacies of business... which has historically further limited competition. And if two companies engage in monopolistic practices, such as colluding to offer the same packages, that should be the domain of antitrust courts.
      - BinaryIdiot 9y ago
        > not sure why it's such a crazy idea. It's not a _crazy_ idea (many have proposed such an idea) it's just not _possible_ in the United States in most areas.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    "Minority of people"? Most people are in a duopoly - the local telco, the local cableco. Not much in the way of competition.
gervase 9y ago
In many areas, there are only 1 (maybe 2) ISPs, so there is no viable alternative choice. It is also quite easy to detect whether someone is using a VPN, so I don't see why they wouldn't also dictate which protocols are permissible for each "package". This would be in-line with the packages offered which require the users to install MITM certs and/or use provider-based DNS servers in order to ensure tracking of all online traffic (in exchange for a "discount", of course).
BinaryIdiot 9y ago
> Everyone would flock to the ISPs who didn't do this. I wish I had your optimism. I live in the damn Bay Area and I have two choices for ISPs: 1. Comcast Cable 2. Dial-up....if I get my phone provided by Comcast Every placed I've lived at so far on the East and West coast, even in populated areas, I have usually just Comcast and, occasionally, a terrible DSL provider. That's it. It's quite common across the USA to have little or no choice in ISPs.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> I'm not sure why people think the only that has held ISPs back from doing this is a 3yr old FTC regulation The FCC has been enforcing neutrality principles since 2004, through case-by-case actions through 2010, and through regulatory orders in 2010 and 2015. Even in the brief window between case-by-case enforcement being struck down in 2010 and the 2010 Open Internet Order and the longer window between the 2010 Order being struck down and the 2015 Order, there was a clear regulatory direction which gave non-neutral activity a high-risk of being unsustainable and thus not worth investing in. There is very little competition in ISPs in most areas and very high barriers to entry; it isn't competition that has been controlling non-neutral behavior.
- dmix 9y ago
  Google or Amazon, or the rest of the tech industry, wouldn't be able to find the capital to build fast/unthrottled internet to eat Comcast's lunch? Alienating an entire industry and customer based like this would be a huge incentive for many parties, the market forces here are very much being downplayed. Not to mention the technical hurdles (encryption, VPNs) outside of the risk involved of convincing an executive board to engage in a PR disaster and expose themselves to the risk of Google competing with them. Besides has any company have tried to push TV-style packages, where they throttle websites depending on your package... and the FCC regulations stopped them? This is the scenario I keep reading about as what will happen if these regulations didn't exist. But I've yet to hear of an actual ISP trying this... Typically with regulations you have the industry pushing back against them because they want to do certain things. But I'm not seeing that here, multiple ISP have already claimed they have no interest in engaging in this type of throttling and I personally don't see how this would ever fly even if they did. Yes, cable companies have taken advantage of their political pull and monopoly positions to do some shady stuff but I'm very skeptical they could ever pull anything like that off in the internet. That's a whole different ball game than the tightly corporate controlled finite-content TV market and the tech industry and the public have clearly stated they won't sit idly by, regardless of regulations.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Google or Amazon, or the rest of the tech industry, wouldn't be able to find the capital to build fast/unthrottled internet to eat Comcast's lunch? Not while paying a Comcast (and other ISPs) tax to reach existing users, which then funds Comcast (et al.) staying ahead of them.
bootlooped 9y ago
> Everyone would flock to the ISPs who didn't do this Alternative scenario is that the major ISPs for a given area would conveniently move to this pricing model around the same time. The best example of this happening in real life, in a similar industry, is how Verizon and AT&T cell carrier offerings often move in sync in term of pricing and features, and not always to the benefit of the consumer.
- dmix 9y ago
  > a given area would conveniently move to this pricing model around the same time. ISPs do this too. So does McDonalds and Burger King. And most other industries with oligopolies. Just because pricing shifts in sync doesn't mean they will all take a major risk in changing towards TV-style packages (Social media package to get Facebook/Twitter or Streaming package to get Netflix/Amazon Go!) also in sync. And it would have to be in sync. The only way it could work is if one takes a risk and customers don't immediately flock to the other one before they do it too. It's going to be incredibly unpopular and I highly doubt it will be synchronized without some illegal antitrust laws being violated before they realize it's not a good business decision. Besides I'm not against the idea of having regulation if they do try it. I'm just not convinced anyone will, successfully.

matt4077 9y ago

They will not change the end-user prices you pay. But they will charge the next netflix, or google, or github that comes around to get their website to you. That startup will never have a choice but to pay up, if they're interested in reaching their customers. They will be charged exactly what their per-customer profit is, minus one cent.

woodrowbarlow 9y ago

it isn't Netflix or Facebook or Google you should be worried about. it's the startup company trying to launch a competing service. imagine having to pay your ISP extra money for the privilege of using a privacy-oriented search tool like Duck Duck Go over Google... and none of the money you pay goes towards Duck Duck Go.