4 ms·

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a compelling reason that it should be illegal for me to buy a "Facebook Only" internet service.

westbywest 9y ago
The reasoning I understand is that it enables the sort of monopolistic practices that historically have been restricted. Offering $20/mo "Facebook only" or $10/mo "Just email for Grandma" plans has providers competing more on what destinations they (don't) restrict in their Internet access, and less on actual speed/latency of the service. Larger providers could then roll out near-$0/mo "Email-only" plans at below cost, specifically to squeeze out the smaller providers previously trying to eek by on their equivalent $10 plans, and then retire those plans once competition is gone. Selling at below cost to kill competition is predatory pricing, which has spawned antitrust claims in the past in other markets.
dawnbreez 9y ago
If we allow you to buy "facebook-only" service which only serves FB, Twitter, and related services...what happens to Gnusocial, which isn't on that list? By permitting discrimination by content, you are implicitly allowing an ISP to cripple services at their discretion. Perhaps a better example: would it be fair for Comcast to cut any connection to AT&T or Time Warner's sites?
DubiousPusher 9y ago
Yeah, cause that's what's going to happen. Remember the heydays of cable TV when you could pay for just what you wanted!?
- tengbretson 9y ago
  Yes. If only we'd made it illegal for cable companies to sell cable packages back then.
  - DubiousPusher 9y ago
    If only we'd have required line owners to wholesale access to other service providers. We wouldn't have had to made packages illegal because there'd have been actual competition.
BWStearns 9y ago
I'm taking should to mean "why it should be that way", not "why it currently is under current laws/regs". Generally laws concerning infrastructure are made on the basis of public policy outcome concerns. Having cable-style menus of internet access has negative public policy outcomes, and no good public policy outcomes. The open internet as it stands delivers economic benefits and provides opportunities for more equitable information and service access. The internet has become critical for education, research, finance, and also for a whole host of frivolous things that we don't want to regulate away. It's become where we expect innovative products to emerge from and the non-existent barriers to entry are why that is so. It's also become an equalizer for access to information. Sure, the majority of the country doesn't take advantage of that, but enough of us have and the country has received real economic benefit from that access. The fall of net neutrality will end up preserving the access to the frivolous things (FB, Netflix, Twitter, Gaming) while restricting access to the parts of the web that have strong societal good associated with it (all the varied large and small services and sources of information that don't exist for click farming and ad pushing). Allowing Facebook only packages would pretty much trap the poor and tech illiterate into an information ghetto. Right now they're simply voluntarily staying in said information ghetto, but there are no monetary or technological hurdles to them leaving. How is a poor student with the FaceFlix only internet package going to do research for their history paper? There aren't many posts on Facebook walls that would make for useful sources. But they can just use the library because we've decided no one needs the internet! Surely this won't result in a further bifurcation of education in this country. I don't think that many on HN currently would be negatively impacted by a FaceFlix option being available, many of us have to have full internet access for work or would personally shell out for it anyways. The thing that would impact our community directly is that there would certainly be those who will never find their passion or affinity for technology because they'll grow up with a FaceFlix plan and never stumble upon that thing that piques their curiosity. They won't become our future classmates or coworkers or conference speakers, they won't make interesting new technology, and we'll all be poorer for it.
ensignavenger 9y ago
Because that would not be "internet" access, it would be Facebook access. If it were marketed as such, I can see your point. But it should not be labeled "internet" access, and should not receive the subsidies that the FCC provides for Internet access.
s73ver_ 9y ago
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a compelling reason why that should be a thing.
- tengbretson 9y ago
  Whether there is a reason or not for it to exist is a moot point. Why must it be illegal to sell such a service?
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Why should it be legal? Your phone service doesn't work that way. Your water or power doesn't work that way.
mundo 9y ago
Why do you have to pay for road maintenance in your whole town, if the only streets you drive on go to your job and the mall? Because roads aren't a bunch of separate things you pay for and benefit from individually, they are one thing ("the roads") that you pay for collectively and benefit from as a whole. Living in a town with good roads improves your life in all sorts of subtle ways that more than offset the short-sighted savings you'd see from refusing to fix potholes on streets you never visit. Same deal with the internet. When you pay your broadband bill, you're not just paying for the cables and routers between your house and Facebook, you're paying for the maintenance of "the internet", a collective thing which benefits you indirectly even if you don't visit most of it. And using an internet that prioritizes the routes to Facebook and Youtube would be a lot like living in a town where the only good roads lead to your job and the mall.
vorotato 9y ago
I'll sell you facebook only service. You can just mail me your statuses and I'll mail you back their replies. It's 50 dollars a month.

westbywest 9y ago

The reasoning I understand is that it enables the sort of monopolistic practices that historically have been restricted. Offering $20/mo "Facebook only" or $10/mo "Just email for Grandma" plans has providers competing more on what destinations they (don't) restrict in their Internet access, and less on actual speed/latency of the service. Larger providers could then roll out near-$0/mo "Email-only" plans at below cost, specifically to squeeze out the smaller providers previously trying to eek by on their equivalent $10 plans, and then retire those plans once competition is gone. Selling at below cost to kill competition is predatory pricing, which has spawned antitrust claims in the past in other markets.

dawnbreez 9y ago

If we allow you to buy "facebook-only" service which only serves FB, Twitter, and related services...what happens to Gnusocial, which isn't on that list? By permitting discrimination by content, you are implicitly allowing an ISP to cripple services at their discretion. Perhaps a better example: would it be fair for Comcast to cut any connection to AT&T or Time Warner's sites?

DubiousPusher 9y ago

Yeah, cause that's what's going to happen. Remember the heydays of cable TV when you could pay for just what you wanted!?

tengbretson 9y ago
Yes. If only we'd made it illegal for cable companies to sell cable packages back then.
- DubiousPusher 9y ago
  If only we'd have required line owners to wholesale access to other service providers. We wouldn't have had to made packages illegal because there'd have been actual competition.

BWStearns 9y ago

I'm taking should to mean "why it should be that way", not "why it currently is under current laws/regs". Generally laws concerning infrastructure are made on the basis of public policy outcome concerns. Having cable-style menus of internet access has negative public policy outcomes, and no good public policy outcomes. The open internet as it stands delivers economic benefits and provides opportunities for more equitable information and service access. The internet has become critical for education, research, finance, and also for a whole host of frivolous things that we don't want to regulate away. It's become where we expect innovative products to emerge from and the non-existent barriers to entry are why that is so. It's also become an equalizer for access to information. Sure, the majority of the country doesn't take advantage of that, but enough of us have and the country has received real economic benefit from that access. The fall of net neutrality will end up preserving the access to the frivolous things (FB, Netflix, Twitter, Gaming) while restricting access to the parts of the web that have strong societal good associated with it (all the varied large and small services and sources of information that don't exist for click farming and ad pushing). Allowing Facebook only packages would pretty much trap the poor and tech illiterate into an information ghetto. Right now they're simply voluntarily staying in said information ghetto, but there are no monetary or technological hurdles to them leaving. How is a poor student with the FaceFlix only internet package going to do research for their history paper? There aren't many posts on Facebook walls that would make for useful sources. But they can just use the library because we've decided no one needs the internet! Surely this won't result in a further bifurcation of education in this country. I don't think that many on HN currently would be negatively impacted by a FaceFlix option being available, many of us have to have full internet access for work or would personally shell out for it anyways. The thing that would impact our community directly is that there would certainly be those who will never find their passion or affinity for technology because they'll grow up with a FaceFlix plan and never stumble upon that thing that piques their curiosity. They won't become our future classmates or coworkers or conference speakers, they won't make interesting new technology, and we'll all be poorer for it.

ensignavenger 9y ago

Because that would not be "internet" access, it would be Facebook access. If it were marketed as such, I can see your point. But it should not be labeled "internet" access, and should not receive the subsidies that the FCC provides for Internet access.

s73ver_ 9y ago

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a compelling reason why that should be a thing.

tengbretson 9y ago
Whether there is a reason or not for it to exist is a moot point. Why must it be illegal to sell such a service?
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Why should it be legal? Your phone service doesn't work that way. Your water or power doesn't work that way.

mundo 9y ago

Why do you have to pay for road maintenance in your whole town, if the only streets you drive on go to your job and the mall? Because roads aren't a bunch of separate things you pay for and benefit from individually, they are one thing ("the roads") that you pay for collectively and benefit from as a whole. Living in a town with good roads improves your life in all sorts of subtle ways that more than offset the short-sighted savings you'd see from refusing to fix potholes on streets you never visit. Same deal with the internet. When you pay your broadband bill, you're not just paying for the cables and routers between your house and Facebook, you're paying for the maintenance of "the internet", a collective thing which benefits you indirectly even if you don't visit most of it. And using an internet that prioritizes the routes to Facebook and Youtube would be a lot like living in a town where the only good roads lead to your job and the mall.

vorotato 9y ago

I'll sell you facebook only service. You can just mail me your statuses and I'll mail you back their replies. It's 50 dollars a month.