5 ms·

You're assuming that most people have access to more than one ISP (they don't), or that statements by ISPs about what they intend to do or not do are truthful (

You're assuming that most people have access to more than one ISP (they don't), or that statements by ISPs about what they intend to do or not do are truthful (they aren't). Specifically statements promising they would never do anything that would break net neutrality rules, while arguing against the imposition of net neutrality rules, would not make sense. Why oppose something you have no intention of doing?

dmix 9y ago
My counter point does not depend entirely on competition. That is merely one counter-balance available to much of the country who have more than one ISP available, of the many I mentioned (technical, marketing, business model). Why not create regulation in response to real scenarios that have actually happened instead of hypothetical ones that are already have plenty of other drawbacks?
- outsidetheparty 9y ago
  Have you forgotten the whole controversy about Verizon throttling Netflix back in July? This is a real scenario that has actually happened. http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-netflix-youtube-throttling-speeds-2017-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-netflix-youtube-throt... Your other points hold up equally poorly: there are no unsolved technical hurdles in throttling or blocking specific sites or services -- as evidenced by the fact that they can and have already done so. As for "marketing" and "business model" and it being an "unpopular idea", these again fall back to the issue of consumer choice: in an effective monopoly, it doesn't matter a whit whether the populace dislikes the idea. It's not like Comcast is winning any popularity contests as it is.
  - dmix 9y ago
    That is different from the type of satellite-tv style packages ("Social media package, Facebook/Twitter, for only $9.99!") type of thing that people are talking about with net neutrality. And the current FTC regulations in question didn't do anything in regards to that issue you linked to?
    - outsidetheparty 9y ago
      > That is different from the type of satellite-tv style packages ("Social media package, Facebook/Twitter, for only $9.99!") type of thing that people are talking about with net neutrality. It's the flip side of the same coin. Without net neutrality, ISPs will be able to charge content providers like Netflix a toll to not be throttled out of viablity -- who will then presumably pass the costs on to end consumers -- or the ISPs can directly charge end consumers an extra toll for access to the full internet. (Of course they'll do both, after some experimentation to find the best profit::outrage ratio.) > And the current FTC regulations in question didn't do anything in regards to that issue you linked to? ...they kinda did? In that Verizon had to back off and wait for net neutrality to be repealed before they could try again? (I assume you meant FCC, not FTC, in all of this. The FTC, of course, doesn't have any authority here until after the common carrier regulations are lifted. So, roughly a month from now.)
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Why not create regulation in response to real scenarios that have actually happened instead of hypothetical ones that are already have plenty of other drawbacks? The FCC adopted NN principles in 2004 and did reactive, case-by-case enforcement of the principles without general regulation up until the federal courts stopped that approach in 2010. The two regulatory packages in 2010 and 2015 were largely based on the actual things that had been observed in the 2004-2010 period. That is, while they did consider and seek to preempt some new violations of the same principles, they were very much reactions to real scenarios that happened.
- learc83 9y ago
  >real scenarios Comcast didn't count movies streamed through there service against the monthly cap. They did count movies streamed through netflix.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  If we don't want those things to happen, why allow them at all? Why wait, when we can just say up front, "Those things are not allowed to happen."
collinmanderson 9y ago
90% have at least two providers of 10Mbps+ speed, but only 20% have at least two providers of 25Mbps+ speed. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br... That could change though as more providers are rolling out fiber. (AT&T just rolled out Fiber to the Home in my neighborhood, and Comcast says they will do the same soon.)
- dmix 9y ago
  > That could change though as more providers are rolling out fiber. And Google's competition heavily incentivized that rolling out fiber. Imagine what the threat of a new entrant offering unthrottled internet would do to these hypothetical plans?
  - learc83 9y ago
    Google was a huge company that lost a lot of money trying to improve internet access through competition. Last I heard they decided to stop expanding, and access to anything comparable to Google Fiber is extremely limited.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Why on earth should whether you get those plans or not depend on whether Google Jesus has decided to show his face upon you?
- dllthomas 9y ago
  It should be noted that that's 90% of census blocks. IIUC, if one household has access to one provider, another household has access to a different provider, and no one else has any access, that's part of that 90%. If people aren't making their housing decisions based significantly on their choice of internet provider, that's not really competition.
- djrogers 9y ago
  Directly from the article you linked: > Even these numbers overstate the amount of competition, because an ISP might offer service to only part of a census block. The percentage of households with choice is thus even lower. This is especially true with DSL @10mb - it’s common for DSL providers to have lower speeds for some customers due to distance limitations. Also, is 2 providers at 10mb really enough ‘choice’ to force the market to do the right thing here? Especially considering that those 2 providers are likely one of only 3 or 4 national ISPs... I am a huge proponent of market freedom and market choices, but the system we have now has embedded natural and regulatory monopolies and duopolies - that’s the opposite of a free market.
himom 9y ago
Very true. Rural folks have it worst: monopoly or no access at all. If a company like Sinclair also owned the broadband, only payola TV would work, YouTube access and bandwidth could a tiered add-on, they’d block whichever company didn’t pay the extortion protection money with no means of recourse. Also, for everyone, billing would become more complexified, obscured to extract more money from consumers and thwart cost calculation and comparing with (the few remaining, if any) competitors.
- milankragujevic 9y ago
  Don't people have access to 4G? I live in a tiny village (1000 people) and have 40/6 home Internet via 4G that I pay less than $10/mo with a 200 GB data cap that you can prepay $5 for 100 gb more if you spend it. I'm not from the U.S. though.
  - TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
    I'm from the US and would love to get that service. Fellow Americans, does it exist?
  - lbarrett 9y ago
    No. I have fast cellular internet but pay $10/GB, and I consider that a pretty good deal (total for me + wife is $45/mo, including cellular and data; in Portland, OR). Your 4G internet is cheaper than most people's wired internet here in the US.
  - unclenoriega 9y ago
    I live just outside a town of 3000 (in the US). My wired (cable) connection costs $44.95/month ($54.95 without cable TV) for 10/1 with a 500GB cap. Edit: I meant to imply that 4G would be more expensive. After checking briefly, the best offer I'm finding starts at $30/month for 5GB.
  - roryisok 9y ago
    What magical country are you from? I'm going to guess at somewhere in Northern Europe?

dmix 9y ago

My counter point does not depend entirely on competition. That is merely one counter-balance available to much of the country who have more than one ISP available, of the many I mentioned (technical, marketing, business model). Why not create regulation in response to real scenarios that have actually happened instead of hypothetical ones that are already have plenty of other drawbacks?

outsidetheparty 9y ago
Have you forgotten the whole controversy about Verizon throttling Netflix back in July? This is a real scenario that has actually happened. http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-netflix-youtube-throttling-speeds-2017-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-netflix-youtube-throt... Your other points hold up equally poorly: there are no unsolved technical hurdles in throttling or blocking specific sites or services -- as evidenced by the fact that they can and have already done so. As for "marketing" and "business model" and it being an "unpopular idea", these again fall back to the issue of consumer choice: in an effective monopoly, it doesn't matter a whit whether the populace dislikes the idea. It's not like Comcast is winning any popularity contests as it is.
- dmix 9y ago
  That is different from the type of satellite-tv style packages ("Social media package, Facebook/Twitter, for only $9.99!") type of thing that people are talking about with net neutrality. And the current FTC regulations in question didn't do anything in regards to that issue you linked to?
  - outsidetheparty 9y ago
    > That is different from the type of satellite-tv style packages ("Social media package, Facebook/Twitter, for only $9.99!") type of thing that people are talking about with net neutrality. It's the flip side of the same coin. Without net neutrality, ISPs will be able to charge content providers like Netflix a toll to not be throttled out of viablity -- who will then presumably pass the costs on to end consumers -- or the ISPs can directly charge end consumers an extra toll for access to the full internet. (Of course they'll do both, after some experimentation to find the best profit::outrage ratio.) > And the current FTC regulations in question didn't do anything in regards to that issue you linked to? ...they kinda did? In that Verizon had to back off and wait for net neutrality to be repealed before they could try again? (I assume you meant FCC, not FTC, in all of this. The FTC, of course, doesn't have any authority here until after the common carrier regulations are lifted. So, roughly a month from now.)
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Why not create regulation in response to real scenarios that have actually happened instead of hypothetical ones that are already have plenty of other drawbacks? The FCC adopted NN principles in 2004 and did reactive, case-by-case enforcement of the principles without general regulation up until the federal courts stopped that approach in 2010. The two regulatory packages in 2010 and 2015 were largely based on the actual things that had been observed in the 2004-2010 period. That is, while they did consider and seek to preempt some new violations of the same principles, they were very much reactions to real scenarios that happened.
learc83 9y ago
>real scenarios Comcast didn't count movies streamed through there service against the monthly cap. They did count movies streamed through netflix.
s73ver_ 9y ago
If we don't want those things to happen, why allow them at all? Why wait, when we can just say up front, "Those things are not allowed to happen."

collinmanderson 9y ago

90% have at least two providers of 10Mbps+ speed, but only 20% have at least two providers of 25Mbps+ speed. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br... That could change though as more providers are rolling out fiber. (AT&T just rolled out Fiber to the Home in my neighborhood, and Comcast says they will do the same soon.)

dmix 9y ago
> That could change though as more providers are rolling out fiber. And Google's competition heavily incentivized that rolling out fiber. Imagine what the threat of a new entrant offering unthrottled internet would do to these hypothetical plans?
- learc83 9y ago
  Google was a huge company that lost a lot of money trying to improve internet access through competition. Last I heard they decided to stop expanding, and access to anything comparable to Google Fiber is extremely limited.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Why on earth should whether you get those plans or not depend on whether Google Jesus has decided to show his face upon you?
dllthomas 9y ago
It should be noted that that's 90% of census blocks. IIUC, if one household has access to one provider, another household has access to a different provider, and no one else has any access, that's part of that 90%. If people aren't making their housing decisions based significantly on their choice of internet provider, that's not really competition.
djrogers 9y ago
Directly from the article you linked: > Even these numbers overstate the amount of competition, because an ISP might offer service to only part of a census block. The percentage of households with choice is thus even lower. This is especially true with DSL @10mb - it’s common for DSL providers to have lower speeds for some customers due to distance limitations. Also, is 2 providers at 10mb really enough ‘choice’ to force the market to do the right thing here? Especially considering that those 2 providers are likely one of only 3 or 4 national ISPs... I am a huge proponent of market freedom and market choices, but the system we have now has embedded natural and regulatory monopolies and duopolies - that’s the opposite of a free market.

himom 9y ago

Very true. Rural folks have it worst: monopoly or no access at all. If a company like Sinclair also owned the broadband, only payola TV would work, YouTube access and bandwidth could a tiered add-on, they’d block whichever company didn’t pay the extortion protection money with no means of recourse. Also, for everyone, billing would become more complexified, obscured to extract more money from consumers and thwart cost calculation and comparing with (the few remaining, if any) competitors.

milankragujevic 9y ago
Don't people have access to 4G? I live in a tiny village (1000 people) and have 40/6 home Internet via 4G that I pay less than $10/mo with a 200 GB data cap that you can prepay $5 for 100 gb more if you spend it. I'm not from the U.S. though.
- TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
  I'm from the US and would love to get that service. Fellow Americans, does it exist?
- lbarrett 9y ago
  No. I have fast cellular internet but pay $10/GB, and I consider that a pretty good deal (total for me + wife is $45/mo, including cellular and data; in Portland, OR). Your 4G internet is cheaper than most people's wired internet here in the US.
- unclenoriega 9y ago
  I live just outside a town of 3000 (in the US). My wired (cable) connection costs $44.95/month ($54.95 without cable TV) for 10/1 with a 500GB cap. Edit: I meant to imply that 4G would be more expensive. After checking briefly, the best offer I'm finding starts at $30/month for 5GB.
- roryisok 9y ago
  What magical country are you from? I'm going to guess at somewhere in Northern Europe?