4 ms·

Because transparency and privacy are in direct conflict, and everyone has a "well ackshually" on where you should fall on that spectrum. If you require ISPs to

by mike_d 3y ago

Because transparency and privacy are in direct conflict, and everyone has a "well ackshually" on where you should fall on that spectrum. If you require ISPs to hand over customer and connection performance data to the government you have government spying. If you have a third party estimate the data and sell it to the government, you have a proprietary dataset with no insight into its accuracy. If you let ISPs self report aggregate data they lie to make themselves look better while also convincing their competitors to build out in unprofitable markets. If you give nerds bulk access to data they will figure out a way to abuse it and pitch a YC startup to figure out when you are watching porn and better target ads. Everyone loses in this game. The real solution is you shouldn't care about broadband mapping. Change government broadband incentives to a post-paid reimbursement for delivering fiber to previously unserved homes. Make net neutrality a constitutional amendment. Make FCC spectrum auctions based on who will bid to provide the most free service to underserved users.

eli 3y ago
It’s a map of where they offer service. There is no substantive privacy concern.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> If you require ISPs to hand over customer and connection performance data to the government you have government spying. What customer information? "We have a customer at this address and the min/avg/max download speed their connection has had this year was X/Y/Z" doesn't strike me as particularly sensitive information, nor PII.
- hn_acker 3y ago
  > "We have a customer at this address and the min/avg/max download speed their connection has had this year was X/Y/Z" Not even that. The data could be "With no more than a 1-hour router installation on premise, we (ISP Alpha) would be capable of serving this address at 500 Mbps download speed with 99% uptime, 800 Mbps down with 95% uptime, and 1 GB Mbps with 80% uptime." Ditto for upload speed. That's not customer information. Whether anyone at "this address" actually uses ISP Alpha internet right now doesn't matter until the customer disputes the advertised speed.
gruez 3y ago
>Make net neutrality a constitutional amendment Given all the doom predictions that failed to pass back in 2017, do we really need to add it to the constitution? >Make FCC spectrum auctions based on who will bid to provide the most free service to underserved users. Sounds this is just a redistribution program with extra steps. The cost to provide such free service has to be paid by someone, and it's going hit the whoever is just above the "underserved" threshold (ie. the middle class) the hardest.
hn_acker 3y ago
> The real solution is you shouldn't care about broadband mapping. Change government broadband incentives to a post-paid reimbursement for delivering fiber to previously unserved homes. You can't tell which homes are currently unserved without collecting something. > If you require ISPs to hand over customer and connection performance data to the government you have government spying. Mapping speeds requires knowing what speeds the ISP is capable of providing with XY% uptime. Customer performance data doesn't have to enter the picture, unless the customer decides to file a dispute about false advertisements about bandwidth, for which case mapping laws should grant customers a private right of action as well as standing for class actions.
wubrr 3y ago
> If you require ISPs to hand over customer and connection performance data to the government you have government spying. That's already the case though...
mschuster91 3y ago
> If you require ISPs to hand over customer and connection performance data to the government you have government spying What? No. At least in the case of DSL, the result of link training data is enough - it doesn't reveal anything about the actual person who has ordered a specific broadcast contract, all that the government gets to know is "phone connection X in building Y has usable upstream bandwith A and downstream bandwidth B".

by mike_d 3y ago

eli 3y ago

It’s a map of where they offer service. There is no substantive privacy concern.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

> If you require ISPs to hand over customer and connection performance data to the government you have government spying. What customer information? "We have a customer at this address and the min/avg/max download speed their connection has had this year was X/Y/Z" doesn't strike me as particularly sensitive information, nor PII.

hn_acker 3y ago
> "We have a customer at this address and the min/avg/max download speed their connection has had this year was X/Y/Z" Not even that. The data could be "With no more than a 1-hour router installation on premise, we (ISP Alpha) would be capable of serving this address at 500 Mbps download speed with 99% uptime, 800 Mbps down with 95% uptime, and 1 GB Mbps with 80% uptime." Ditto for upload speed. That's not customer information. Whether anyone at "this address" actually uses ISP Alpha internet right now doesn't matter until the customer disputes the advertised speed.

gruez 3y ago

>Make net neutrality a constitutional amendment Given all the doom predictions that failed to pass back in 2017, do we really need to add it to the constitution? >Make FCC spectrum auctions based on who will bid to provide the most free service to underserved users. Sounds this is just a redistribution program with extra steps. The cost to provide such free service has to be paid by someone, and it's going hit the whoever is just above the "underserved" threshold (ie. the middle class) the hardest.

hn_acker 3y ago

> The real solution is you shouldn't care about broadband mapping. Change government broadband incentives to a post-paid reimbursement for delivering fiber to previously unserved homes. You can't tell which homes are currently unserved without collecting something. > If you require ISPs to hand over customer and connection performance data to the government you have government spying. Mapping speeds requires knowing what speeds the ISP is capable of providing with XY% uptime. Customer performance data doesn't have to enter the picture, unless the customer decides to file a dispute about false advertisements about bandwidth, for which case mapping laws should grant customers a private right of action as well as standing for class actions.

wubrr 3y ago

> If you require ISPs to hand over customer and connection performance data to the government you have government spying. That's already the case though...

mschuster91 3y ago

> If you require ISPs to hand over customer and connection performance data to the government you have government spying What? No. At least in the case of DSL, the result of link training data is enough - it doesn't reveal anything about the actual person who has ordered a specific broadcast contract, all that the government gets to know is "phone connection X in building Y has usable upstream bandwith A and downstream bandwidth B".