8 ms·

The ISPs are in an all out attack on competitors like Facebook/Google/Netflix/others. ISPs bought their way into the market with the ISP privacy protections bei

The ISPs are in an all out attack on competitors like Facebook/Google/Netflix/others. ISPs bought their way into the market with the ISP privacy protections being removed [1][2] and net neutrality being killed rather than innovating. The privacy protections being removed helped lessen the FCC grip on privacy and helped their case, with legislators not the people, to remove FCC net neutrality protections. It is obvious everywhere that massive PR pushes are going on and astroturfing to a heavy degree everywhere ISP competitors on the advertising/privacy/data space are. Instead of innovating their way in with products people want and improving their networks so people pay more, the ISPs are trying to win this via bribing for legislation and mud slinging. They bought their way in with the ISP privacy protections being removed under the FCC to the FTC because they have more leverage there. It is sad ISPs have resorted to this instead of innovating and creating products people want by improving them rather than trying to slow down competitors via bribing and lobbying. ISPs were once a beacon of innovation bringing in broadband, now they are in the milking it phase. [1] https://eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-your-isp-could-do-if-congress-repeals-fccs-privacy-protections https://eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-your-is... [2] https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/op-ed-for-the-wall-street-journal https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/op-ed-f...

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
> ISPs were once a beacon of innovation bringing in broadband I don't remember this time period. Any examples?
- deelowe 9y ago
  Late 90s/early 2000s when there were tons of smaller isps offering a variety of solutions. This was back when operating a CLEC was a viable option before the incumbents found a way to fix that issue.
  - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    I really miss these days. Sure the internet speeds were painfully slow, but I knew my ISP. I could go have lunch with them. I could borrow compute resources during slow times. I think when the cable companies started monopolizing the internet and the web because commercialized, that's when we lost a lot of computing's early "innocence". I'm sure someone will say I'm romanticizing that period, but darnit, just let me.
    - Coincoin 9y ago
      For a while, the best and cheapest ISP in Montreal was a beauty products company. They had a shit ton of modems in a back store and a very good admin I guess.
- drawkbox 9y ago
  In the mid to late 90s going from 56k to 6Mbps was amazing. Now they are just local monopolies with fake competition abusing their position and trust. ISPs are actively holding back on innovation / expansion and that causes less innovation in the US competitively. > FCC report finds almost no broadband competition at 100Mbps speeds [1][2]. > Even at 25Mbps, 43 percent of the US had zero ISPs or just one [1][2]. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/02/fcc-report-finds-almost-no-broadband-competition-at-100mbps-speeds/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/02/fcc-r... [2] https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0207/DOC-349074A1.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201...
  - vormalpg 9y ago
    You're aware the ISPs don't generally do any of the research and development of telecommunication equipment? They just put their stamp on modem they rent you. The "ISP innovation" line has always been pure propaganda.
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>The ISPs are in an all out attack on competitors like Facebook/Google. And TV, and Print. Facebook/Google could have had their cake and eat it too. It all can be tied back to when they decided to go all-in with Hillary and got the lefty content auditors.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ryandrake 9y ago
I’d rather have 10 ISPs competing but NOT innovating than one ISP bent on innovating. Innovation, to an ISP, means: ads, data collection, pushing their own content; basically everything except being a dumb pipe that gets bits from elsewhere into my home.
- alehul 9y ago
  What about throwing capital at developing a better way to route traffic than BGP? Or trying to further increase bandwidth and be a faster 'dumb pipe'?
  - aerotwelve 9y ago
    That's a really interesting point. If ISPs reinvested some of their revenue into networking research (or even more applied /R&D work), it would go a long way towards both advancing our field and improving their general reputations. Networking is not my area of expertise, so it's possible that some do this already. I guess I always assumed that ISPs had research departments whose members would be involved in drafting network-related RFCs and publishing papers, but maybe that's left to Cisco et al.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      It's about like you'd expect. They do. The interesting thing is that a huge focus appears to be cost-sensitive. As last mile operators, they have relatively low profit-per-customer (compared to a backhaul operator) with which to build each final physical network link. Hence crazy stuff like "fiber to the box and short-run copper standard to the house". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableLabs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableLabs https://www.cablelabs.com/about-cablelabs/member-companies/ https://www.cablelabs.com/about-cablelabs/member-companies/
ethbro 9y ago
I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations. For ISPs, the council is that they should be regulated (e.g. net neutrality, data privacy). For Facebook, Google, et al. the council is that they shouldn't be regulated (e.g. EU GDPR). I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately falls down to "ISPs are unpopular, web companies are popular." When it comes down to it, regulation promoting consumer privacy, price and TOS transparency, and access by new entrants to the market is almost always beneficial... to the consumer. Because let's not kid ourselves that Facebook or Google are fundamentally different than someone who owns the last mile of your network connectivity. Their current behavior might be (mostly) benevolent, but the centralization they've engineered means if they want to maximize monetization tomorrow...
- saagarjha 9y ago
  > For Facebook, Google, et al. the council is that they shouldn't be regulated (e.g. EU GDPR). GDPR is regulation, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    And HN comments haven't trended neutral to critical on GDPR?
    - saagarjha 9y ago
      Not in my experience. Most comments I've seen laud it for providing protections for user privacy.
    - grandmczeb 9y ago
      You see what you want to see. FWIW I think there have been more positive comments than negative.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      To expand on the other user, most of the negative gdpr commentary I've seen here has been that it either doesn't do enough, is confusing or vague, or will further entrench the big guys. None of those are particularly "we shouldn't regulate the big guys", but more of a "I have specific issues with this regulation". I expect that there would be some similar sentiment if we were discussing a specific piece of isp regulating legislation.
tomc1985 9y ago
ISPs should be happy with their status as utilities providers.
- walshemj 9y ago
  They also now are part of the CNI - so you play by the rules or you don't get to play at all. Possibly google fb et all ought to start lobbying for LLU and for full competion in the local loop.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago

> ISPs were once a beacon of innovation bringing in broadband I don't remember this time period. Any examples?

deelowe 9y ago
Late 90s/early 2000s when there were tons of smaller isps offering a variety of solutions. This was back when operating a CLEC was a viable option before the incumbents found a way to fix that issue.
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  I really miss these days. Sure the internet speeds were painfully slow, but I knew my ISP. I could go have lunch with them. I could borrow compute resources during slow times. I think when the cable companies started monopolizing the internet and the web because commercialized, that's when we lost a lot of computing's early "innocence". I'm sure someone will say I'm romanticizing that period, but darnit, just let me.
  - Coincoin 9y ago
    For a while, the best and cheapest ISP in Montreal was a beauty products company. They had a shit ton of modems in a back store and a very good admin I guess.
drawkbox 9y ago
In the mid to late 90s going from 56k to 6Mbps was amazing. Now they are just local monopolies with fake competition abusing their position and trust. ISPs are actively holding back on innovation / expansion and that causes less innovation in the US competitively. > FCC report finds almost no broadband competition at 100Mbps speeds [1][2]. > Even at 25Mbps, 43 percent of the US had zero ISPs or just one [1][2]. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/02/fcc-report-finds-almost-no-broadband-competition-at-100mbps-speeds/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/02/fcc-r... [2] https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0207/DOC-349074A1.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201...
- vormalpg 9y ago
  You're aware the ISPs don't generally do any of the research and development of telecommunication equipment? They just put their stamp on modem they rent you. The "ISP innovation" line has always been pure propaganda.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago

>The ISPs are in an all out attack on competitors like Facebook/Google. And TV, and Print. Facebook/Google could have had their cake and eat it too. It all can be tied back to when they decided to go all-in with Hillary and got the lefty content auditors.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ryandrake 9y ago

I’d rather have 10 ISPs competing but NOT innovating than one ISP bent on innovating. Innovation, to an ISP, means: ads, data collection, pushing their own content; basically everything except being a dumb pipe that gets bits from elsewhere into my home.

alehul 9y ago
What about throwing capital at developing a better way to route traffic than BGP? Or trying to further increase bandwidth and be a faster 'dumb pipe'?
- aerotwelve 9y ago
  That's a really interesting point. If ISPs reinvested some of their revenue into networking research (or even more applied /R&D work), it would go a long way towards both advancing our field and improving their general reputations. Networking is not my area of expertise, so it's possible that some do this already. I guess I always assumed that ISPs had research departments whose members would be involved in drafting network-related RFCs and publishing papers, but maybe that's left to Cisco et al.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    It's about like you'd expect. They do. The interesting thing is that a huge focus appears to be cost-sensitive. As last mile operators, they have relatively low profit-per-customer (compared to a backhaul operator) with which to build each final physical network link. Hence crazy stuff like "fiber to the box and short-run copper standard to the house". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableLabs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableLabs https://www.cablelabs.com/about-cablelabs/member-companies/ https://www.cablelabs.com/about-cablelabs/member-companies/

ethbro 9y ago

I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations. For ISPs, the council is that they should be regulated (e.g. net neutrality, data privacy). For Facebook, Google, et al. the council is that they shouldn't be regulated (e.g. EU GDPR). I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately falls down to "ISPs are unpopular, web companies are popular." When it comes down to it, regulation promoting consumer privacy, price and TOS transparency, and access by new entrants to the market is almost always beneficial... to the consumer. Because let's not kid ourselves that Facebook or Google are fundamentally different than someone who owns the last mile of your network connectivity. Their current behavior might be (mostly) benevolent, but the centralization they've engineered means if they want to maximize monetization tomorrow...

saagarjha 9y ago
> For Facebook, Google, et al. the council is that they shouldn't be regulated (e.g. EU GDPR). GDPR is regulation, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
- ethbro 9y ago
  And HN comments haven't trended neutral to critical on GDPR?
  - saagarjha 9y ago
    Not in my experience. Most comments I've seen laud it for providing protections for user privacy.
  - grandmczeb 9y ago
    You see what you want to see. FWIW I think there have been more positive comments than negative.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    To expand on the other user, most of the negative gdpr commentary I've seen here has been that it either doesn't do enough, is confusing or vague, or will further entrench the big guys. None of those are particularly "we shouldn't regulate the big guys", but more of a "I have specific issues with this regulation". I expect that there would be some similar sentiment if we were discussing a specific piece of isp regulating legislation.

tomc1985 9y ago

ISPs should be happy with their status as utilities providers.

walshemj 9y ago
They also now are part of the CNI - so you play by the rules or you don't get to play at all. Possibly google fb et all ought to start lobbying for LLU and for full competion in the local loop.