3 ms·

Your comment is content-free and breaks the HN guideline to assume good faith. I’d like to hear why you think it is terrible when Comcast bans a website but fi

Your comment is content-free and breaks the HN guideline to assume good faith. I’d like to hear why you think it is terrible when Comcast bans a website but fine when Google/Facebook/Twitter do it. Both groups have monopolistic power. And, if anything, the ISPs are much less powerful and less important than the big tech companies. If anything they should be held to a higher standard.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> Your comment is content-free and breaks the HN guideline to assume good faith. Nah. > I’d like to hear why you think it is terrible when Comcast bans a website but fine when Google/Facebook/Twitter do it. In many areas of the country, there is only one ISP available. In my area, there's two, but one only offers very slow DSL; there is a de facto monopoly on meaningful internet service. This is not the case for social media. > Both groups have monopolistic power. That you had to say "Google/Facebook/Twitter" and not just one of them clearly indicates that they do not.
- nostromo 6y ago
  The majority Americans have a choice in ISPs, so do you think they should be able to block any websites they like - just like Twitter? Hey, it’s their platform... don’t like it, go somewhere else. And every American has a choice in cellphone service providers - so they can block journalist they don’t favor too. What could possibly go wrong?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > The majority Americans have a choice in ISPs... Not really, no. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/new-fcc-data-indicates-future-broadband-access-most-americans-will-be-monopoly https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/new-fcc-data-indicates... > The major takeaway of this report, which provides policymakers in D.C. and the states a wide-ranging view of available data to see trends in the Internet, is that competition for broadband only looks good at slow speeds while a vast majority of Americans (EFF estimates at least 68 million) are facing monopoly or no access to high-speed broadband. > Instead, in a handful of markets we have reviewed, we find that the average price consumers pay ranges from 200% to 400% above competitive rates and that cable prices are established surgical precision in order to extract monopoly rents. For example, I myself would have to pay $159.95 for a gigabit service whereas my coworkers would pay $40 for a superior product.
    - nostromo 6y ago
      It's only a monopoly when you're narrowly focused not on internet access, but on fiber specifically. My goodness you folks will bend over backwards to defend the world's largest corporations censoring journalists. It shows just how illiberal the Democratic Party has become. It's very lonely right now for those of us that believe in freedom of speech as an ideal worth standing up for.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        > It's only a monopoly when you're narrowly focused not on internet access, but on fiber specifically. That's not actually what the highlighted quotes say.
        nostromo 6y ago
        Check out the FCC's data. Most people have multiple choices for an ISP, except for gigabit speeds. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-mi...
        BenjiWiebe 6y ago
        My phone is about to die, but last time I checked FCC's data on ISPs in my area it was quite inaccurate, showing more and faster options than are actually available. Also it included several geo satellite options, which hardly qualify as options.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        Did you link the wrong article? Title: "50 million US homes have only one 25Mbps Internet provider or none at all" Article: > The household analysis found a slightly better, but still troubling, situation, with nearly half of the 118 million US households lacking any wired Internet choice at the FCC's broadband standard of 25Mbps.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
  You can always use sim card in router and what wrong with dsl. It's like saying you're free to use other social network. Theoretically yes, but...

ceejayoz 6y ago

> Your comment is content-free and breaks the HN guideline to assume good faith. Nah. > I’d like to hear why you think it is terrible when Comcast bans a website but fine when Google/Facebook/Twitter do it. In many areas of the country, there is only one ISP available. In my area, there's two, but one only offers very slow DSL; there is a de facto monopoly on meaningful internet service. This is not the case for social media. > Both groups have monopolistic power. That you had to say "Google/Facebook/Twitter" and not just one of them clearly indicates that they do not.

nostromo 6y ago
The majority Americans have a choice in ISPs, so do you think they should be able to block any websites they like - just like Twitter? Hey, it’s their platform... don’t like it, go somewhere else. And every American has a choice in cellphone service providers - so they can block journalist they don’t favor too. What could possibly go wrong?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > The majority Americans have a choice in ISPs... Not really, no. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/new-fcc-data-indicates-future-broadband-access-most-americans-will-be-monopoly https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/new-fcc-data-indicates... > The major takeaway of this report, which provides policymakers in D.C. and the states a wide-ranging view of available data to see trends in the Internet, is that competition for broadband only looks good at slow speeds while a vast majority of Americans (EFF estimates at least 68 million) are facing monopoly or no access to high-speed broadband. > Instead, in a handful of markets we have reviewed, we find that the average price consumers pay ranges from 200% to 400% above competitive rates and that cable prices are established surgical precision in order to extract monopoly rents. For example, I myself would have to pay $159.95 for a gigabit service whereas my coworkers would pay $40 for a superior product.
  - nostromo 6y ago
    It's only a monopoly when you're narrowly focused not on internet access, but on fiber specifically. My goodness you folks will bend over backwards to defend the world's largest corporations censoring journalists. It shows just how illiberal the Democratic Party has become. It's very lonely right now for those of us that believe in freedom of speech as an ideal worth standing up for.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > It's only a monopoly when you're narrowly focused not on internet access, but on fiber specifically. That's not actually what the highlighted quotes say.
      - nostromo 6y ago
        Check out the FCC's data. Most people have multiple choices for an ISP, except for gigabit speeds. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-mi...
        BenjiWiebe 6y ago
        My phone is about to die, but last time I checked FCC's data on ISPs in my area it was quite inaccurate, showing more and faster options than are actually available. Also it included several geo satellite options, which hardly qualify as options.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        Did you link the wrong article? Title: "50 million US homes have only one 25Mbps Internet provider or none at all" Article: > The household analysis found a slightly better, but still troubling, situation, with nearly half of the 118 million US households lacking any wired Internet choice at the FCC's broadband standard of 25Mbps.
9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
You can always use sim card in router and what wrong with dsl. It's like saying you're free to use other social network. Theoretically yes, but...