5 ms·
The key piece of the article: > Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge said that the FCC/FTC plan will not protect consumers from ISPs. > “Not only is the F
by simplify 9y ago
The key piece of the article:
> Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge said that the FCC/FTC plan will not protect consumers from ISPs.
> “Not only is the FCC eliminating basic net neutrality rules, but it’s joining forces with the FTC to say it will only act when a broadband provider is deceiving the public,” Public Knowledge VP Chris Lewis said. “This gives free rein to broadband providers to block or throttle your broadband service as long as they inform you of it.”
There are literally zero pro-consumer reasons to repeal net neutrality. It will only make the rich guys richer.
- ateesdalejr 9y agoWhat's wrong with rich guys becoming richer? Isn't that the entire process of capitalism? Someone else will come along and topple the monopoly right? If the ISPs cause problems for the consumer there will be a large amount backlash so much so that nobody is going to want to use the ISP. Woops there goes another monopoly. Most everyone here is a capitalist I'm quite sure of it. You can try refuting your capitalist roots but any one person could say the same of yourself, "Why does that really rich overpaid programmer get all of that money. Let's repeal 'profession neutrality' and take his means to make money away." What are you going to say in response?
- inpdx 9y agoNothing wrong with rich guys getting richer. There is a huge problem when it's happening because they've corrupted the government to help them at the expense of consumers, and to preserve their monopoly. It's called regulatory capture, and it's the opposite of free market capitalism.
- lovich 9y agoThey have a physical monopoly in this case with access to the wires. A startup can't just roll out their own network everywhere, even with unlimited capital, due to the legal rights needed to lay that cable. You also can't choose to not use them anymore as they have become an integral part of society. Many things you used to do in person can only be done on the internet now. At this point there is no functional difference between paying protection money to a gang or paying the ISPs. Your business will be trashed, your own personal livelihood can be destroyed due to lack of internet access, and the government will back up the isp if you fight it in any way. That is why it's bad that all this does is make the rich richer.
- X86BSD 9y agoGoogle fiber is a perfect example. Google for gods sakes couldn’t make an entry. They tried! Google! And barely got into a handful of cities and a very small portion of those cities to boot. If google can’t become a competitor no one else stands a chance in hell. That’s just the reality. Maybe wireless tech will change that but I’m not holding my breath. Even with MM wave stuff.
- wintercharm 9y agoThis type of unrestrained capitalism creates monopolies that become unbreakable. When the cost of entry is so high that laying cables is prohibitively expensive, it's almost impossible to compete with large cable companies to break their hold. Look at how much Google has struggled to roll out Fiber, due to all the complicated laws surrounding where and how you can lay these lines down in cities. By forcing ISP's to maintain the fast lane, you could ensure that they would compete on fair terms, rather than just squeeze money from other corporations.
- VeronicaJJ123 9y agoI have reduced commenting on HN because I get downvoted. But not only I am a proud capitalist I do support Mr. Pai's stance on this particular issue. I think people on HN are getting swayed by the word "net neutrality" too much are not looking at the actual rules. Putting government in charge of what should flow on a wire is strictly worse than letting your ISPs decide it. Secondly, there is no evidence that letting ISPs have that freedom is actually a license to make more money. The ISPs and other companies might come up with interesting new services which we today do not know about but might take for granted in future.
- khedoros1 9y agoI'm already unhappy with my ISP; they constantly raise prices without raising service, and I don't reach even 20% of the speed that I'm paying for. Looking for another ISP: Hmm. Well, I could go mobile (surely they won't have a problem with a couple hundred GB a month in bandwidth!) Or there's satellite (same issue, plus horrendous latency). Guess I'm stuck with the cable company. Let's hope for the future that someone new comes in. Looks up local regulations...the city gave that company exclusive franchise rights. Great. > Woops there goes another monopoly. I can dream, I guess.
- dibujante 9y ago> profession neutrality What even...?
- ateesdalejr 9y agoSomething thought of at the spur of the moment. I'm pretty sure no such thing as profession neutrality exists. But if it did and it were being repealed it would most likely be a big deal.
- s73ver_ 9y ago"What's wrong with rich guys becoming richer?" Because it happens by doing something that negatively affects the rest of us. If they were getting richer by something that benefitted the rest of us too, that'd be fine.