5 ms·

Look, I get it — the issues with Google, Facebook, Amazon. But I can’t help but think about how AT&T and other ISPs banded together to claim they shouldn’t be r

by orev 7y ago

Look, I get it — the issues with Google, Facebook, Amazon. But I can’t help but think about how AT&T and other ISPs banded together to claim they shouldn’t be regulated because they are Internet companies just like FANG during the Net Neutrality discussions. When I see just how bad ISPs are acting, in lack of competition, price gouging, content ownership, data monitoring, it really seems they were successful in shifting the focus to FANG and convincing everyone to forget about Net Neutrality. This is not meant to whataboutism, but the truth is the public/news cycles can only handle so many “tech” related items at one time. People are not “locked in” to any of the FANG companies nearly as much as they are their physical ISPs where they really do not have an option.

wybiral 7y ago
It shouldn't be a whataboutism, it's true. They gave too much of a pass to ISPs and that needs to stop. But it doesn't stop by relaxing on tech companies like Google, that would only further normalize it.
creato 7y ago
I think more importantly, ISPs made a (in my opinion, bullshit) free market argument that resonated with conservatives. At the same time, FANG made themselves an enemy of conservatives. Conservatives are now in power.
- jeremyjh 7y ago
  You could make the free market argument here too, but it won't appeal to them. Conservatives have a sort of pact with business interests that are otherwise neutral on social issues. They can look after each other because neither care much about the other's priorities. FANG are not reliably neutral in that same way, they are more like Hollywood in terms of "values". Of course their money is just as good as anyone else's and conservatives will take a lot of it where there is a tactical advantage but there can't be a long-term alliance.
- RandomTisk 7y ago
  What would be different today had NN passed?
studentrob 7y ago
You're right, ISP monopolies are a bigger antitrust issue. People are overwhelmingly pro net-neutrality They will take this action against Google, and meanwhile, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts will continue to take in an average of $100 per customer per month. This is, quite nakedly, Comcast influencing action against Google for trying to compete in broadband. It is convenient that Comcast owns NBC while lobbying government for legislation it wants to see. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/10/25/watch-cnbcs-full-interview-with-comcast-ceo-brian-roberts.html https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/10/25/watch-cnbcs-full-inter...
- HillaryBriss 7y ago
  IDK. Maybe this is not totally relevant, and maybe it's not a valid counterpoint, but I find it interesting that the market capitalizations of AT&T, Comcast and Charter Communications combined are roughly $200 billion less than Alphabet alone.
  - studentrob 7y ago
    You make a good point. Antitrust actions should be a function of both behavior and size. IMO, actions of ISPs have been more nefarious than FANG, https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/explainers/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/expla... https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/02/13/isps-are-violating-the-old-net-neutrality-rules/ https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/02/13/isps-are-violating-t...
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      Why not both? (Apart from politics, obvs.) As an occasional content creator it's impossible not to be aware that the ISPs can limit access to the bandwidth I need, while any of the platforms I might use - PayPal, Ebay, Google/YouTube, Amazon, Apple, even Etsy - can kill an income stream at any time and keep all my earnings just because they want to, with no convincing good-faith resolution procedures and no (affordable) recourse.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
feanaro 7y ago
Not only the US is affected by Google's actions and ISPs are not evil everywhere. This is why Google is the more important issue from the perspective of the rest of the world. This is a transnational issue.
- feanaro 7y ago
  Just in case one of the downvoters stumbles upon this again, I'd appreciate your reasoning. What part of what I said is untrue (assuming this is the reason you downvoted)?
SomeOldThrow 7y ago
A neutral net is pretty meaningless if it’s just a handful of walled gardens you can access
- orev 7y ago
  You still have a choice about what sites you visit. Maybe FANG just provide a great value for people so they choose them more often. Most people don’t have a choice in what ISP they can use.
fiblye 7y ago
The news can only focus on one major company at a time, but the courts can go after all of them.
- LUmBULtERA 7y ago
  There can be very real bandwidth limitations at the government regulatory agencies, however.

by orev 7y ago

wybiral 7y ago

It shouldn't be a whataboutism, it's true. They gave too much of a pass to ISPs and that needs to stop. But it doesn't stop by relaxing on tech companies like Google, that would only further normalize it.

creato 7y ago

I think more importantly, ISPs made a (in my opinion, bullshit) free market argument that resonated with conservatives. At the same time, FANG made themselves an enemy of conservatives. Conservatives are now in power.

jeremyjh 7y ago
You could make the free market argument here too, but it won't appeal to them. Conservatives have a sort of pact with business interests that are otherwise neutral on social issues. They can look after each other because neither care much about the other's priorities. FANG are not reliably neutral in that same way, they are more like Hollywood in terms of "values". Of course their money is just as good as anyone else's and conservatives will take a lot of it where there is a tactical advantage but there can't be a long-term alliance.
RandomTisk 7y ago
What would be different today had NN passed?

studentrob 7y ago

You're right, ISP monopolies are a bigger antitrust issue. People are overwhelmingly pro net-neutrality They will take this action against Google, and meanwhile, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts will continue to take in an average of $100 per customer per month. This is, quite nakedly, Comcast influencing action against Google for trying to compete in broadband. It is convenient that Comcast owns NBC while lobbying government for legislation it wants to see. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/10/25/watch-cnbcs-full-interview-with-comcast-ceo-brian-roberts.html https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/10/25/watch-cnbcs-full-inter...

HillaryBriss 7y ago
IDK. Maybe this is not totally relevant, and maybe it's not a valid counterpoint, but I find it interesting that the market capitalizations of AT&T, Comcast and Charter Communications combined are roughly $200 billion less than Alphabet alone.
- studentrob 7y ago
  You make a good point. Antitrust actions should be a function of both behavior and size. IMO, actions of ISPs have been more nefarious than FANG, https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/explainers/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/expla... https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/02/13/isps-are-violating-the-old-net-neutrality-rules/ https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/02/13/isps-are-violating-t...
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    Why not both? (Apart from politics, obvs.) As an occasional content creator it's impossible not to be aware that the ISPs can limit access to the bandwidth I need, while any of the platforms I might use - PayPal, Ebay, Google/YouTube, Amazon, Apple, even Etsy - can kill an income stream at any time and keep all my earnings just because they want to, with no convincing good-faith resolution procedures and no (affordable) recourse.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

feanaro 7y ago

Not only the US is affected by Google's actions and ISPs are not evil everywhere. This is why Google is the more important issue from the perspective of the rest of the world. This is a transnational issue.

feanaro 7y ago
Just in case one of the downvoters stumbles upon this again, I'd appreciate your reasoning. What part of what I said is untrue (assuming this is the reason you downvoted)?

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

A neutral net is pretty meaningless if it’s just a handful of walled gardens you can access

orev 7y ago
You still have a choice about what sites you visit. Maybe FANG just provide a great value for people so they choose them more often. Most people don’t have a choice in what ISP they can use.

fiblye 7y ago

The news can only focus on one major company at a time, but the courts can go after all of them.

LUmBULtERA 7y ago
There can be very real bandwidth limitations at the government regulatory agencies, however.