HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

John Oliver[0] might have had something to do with that.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak

John Oliver found a good way to explain it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak

The problem is that ISP shills that make these decisions don't care about public opposition. They aren't elected officials.

⬐ dmix

> The problem is that ISP shills that make these decisions don't care about public opposition

But they do care most about making money from the public and no one has convinced me that filtering internet packages by website makes any technical, marketing, or business model sense at all.

This has proven to be incredibly unpopular idea with the public for over a decade as well, whenever it has come up in the press. It wouldn't take much market research to see it's a terrible idea.

Plus the huge technical challenge of filtering at the ISP level... this would be a huge boon for encryption and VPNs as well.

No American ISP for the ~20yr timeframe before the FTC regulation was passed a few years ago had ever offered such an arrangement. Not to mention no ISP in any other country has offered anything close to that either. Plenty of American ISPs have said they have zero intention of doing it either.

This would be a boon to any ISP who DIDN'T do this. Competition, the technical hurdles, and obvious lack of business sense, etc has always been an adequate counter-balance to this idea.

So I'm a bit confused why this is generating so much FUD over such a highly hypothetical and hand wavy scenario... as if the only thing stopping them from doing it was this three year old FTC regulation.

⬐ shmerl

> This would be a boon to any ISP who DIDN'T do this. Competition, and obvious lack of business sense, has always been a far larger counter-balance to this idea.

Competition surely can help, but currently there is no competition in a lot of places. It's basically monopoly / oligopoly situation, with collusion and market division to boot. So increasing competition is a good goal, but it shouldn't block preventing monopolistic abuse with legal means.

Monopolists also created a lot of blockers that prevent increasing competition. Such as local state laws that ban municipal networks which could solve this very problem.

⬐ webXL

> Competition surely can help, but currently there is no competition in a lot of places.

Places with a lot of people? People who have been harmed by what NN is intending to fix?

> Monopolists also created a lot of blockers that prevent increasing competition.

Facilitated by government. If government was responsible in the first place, why not just undo what they did?

⬐ shmerl

> Places with a lot of people?

It doesn't depend on numbers. Depends mostly whether there is some other ISPs besides the coax provider (which are the most widespread).

⬐ webXL

So we should have a one-size-fits-all law? You're not that unimaginative, are you?

⬐ msla

What specifically is wrong with one-size-fits-all?

⬐ shmerl

Anti-trust laws are pretty much universal and we already have them. A lot of NN related abuse could be prevented if our legal system would have actually applied them, but it often doesn't.

⬐ webXL

So a universal NN law is what we need to supersede the "universal" anti-trust laws? I fail to see the logic.

⬐ shmerl

What else can you do, if the system refuses to use anti-trust properly?

⬐ s73ver_

I live in Orange County, CA. I have access to literally one provider.

⬐ webXL

What city? Provider of what?

⬐ s73ver_

I've lived in 3, and in all of them, there was exactly one cable/internet provider.

⬐ webXL

When was that? Seems to be not much of a problem anymore if this is correct: https://broadbandnow.com/California/Orange

⬐ s73ver_

It's now. And that site is extremely misleading, because while all those companies are in the county, they don't serve the same areas. And as long as 1 person in the census block has access to the service, it's counted as serving the entire block.

⬐ khedoros1

> Places with a lot of people? People who have been harmed by what NN is intending to fix?

Yes and yes. I've lived all over southern California, but never anywhere that had two broadband providers available at the same address. Parts in cities; I'm not talking about little desert communities, or something. I have however been inconvenienced by various ISPs' content-based packet filtering policies.

> Facilitated by government. If government was responsible in the first place, why not just undo what they did?

Part of it is that you're talking about every individual local government, with lobbying from the incumbent ISPs. A lot of those governments have contracts with those incumbents, giving them franchise rights in the city. They can't just declare those contracts void.

Beyond the local level, a lot of states have laws that make setting up a new ISP difficult or impossible (especially municipally-operated internet access).

⬐ milofeynman

I see your profile says "data scientist in training"

I would love for you to use some of your training to supply your post with actual data or sources. Everything I see reported disagrees with so many of your assumptions.

Like your unstated assumption of some sort of fair and competitive market where they will lose money if they don't treat their customers right. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-mi...

The internet is so vital to our modern world that it has become a human right in several countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access#Ensur...

⬐ dmix

Here's some data for you: no home/business ISP in any country in the last two decades has offered anything like what is being proposed in in the headline (TV style throttled internet packages based on the website).

The only time this has ever been done is in countries like Portugal to offer cheaper internet on limited mobile phone connections to people only who want Facebook/Twitter/etc for $5/m instead of a full internet connection for $20-30/m (typically also far cheaper than the US). It has never been tried to limit primary ISP internet connections.

Data requires actual numbers. I've repeatedly said in my comments I believe we should regulate things companies have done that are provably bad. Not hand wavy hypothetical things that sound like a terrible idea for any company to try.

⬐ deusofnull

Wait but I thought the free market operated in good faith and not by brutally cutting corners on service, monopolizing, and lobbying government for preferential treatment?

⬐ irl_zebra

No, you got it wrong. The free market operates by brutally cutting corners on service, monopolizing, and lobbying government for preferential treatment.

⬐ mindcrime

If there's a government regulating the market in such a way that a firm can "lobby government for preferential treatment" then it isn't a free market.

⬐ wanderer2323

Well then free market is a useless theoretical concept that does not exist anywhere, has not existed anywhere and cannot exist in any non-trivial environment, and as such should not be discussed.

⬐ dave5104

> This would be a boon to any ISP who DIDN'T do this. Competition, and obvious lack of business sense, has always been a far larger counter-balance to this idea.

Where I'm at, it's Comcast or nothing. Most of the US does not have any ISP competition. It's usually 1 ISP to choose from, or if you're lucky, 1 ISP with expected speeds and 1 ISP over DSL.

I really wish I lived somewhere with multiple options, because if anything like this website bundle scenario did play out, I wouldn't have any choice in avoiding it.

⬐ jrnichols

sad that they point at HughesNet or something equally awful as "competition" too. :/

⬐ prions

What's different now is that we're seeing huge mergers between telecom companies and media companies.

The internet is more vital to everyone now than compared to 15 years ago. Every year more and more people are choosing to eschew traditional cable for Netflix et al.

With NN being repealed, it opens up ways for ISP's to promote their own content and shut out others like nothing that's happened before. This whole repeal smacks of anti-consumerism and pro corporate nonsense.

⬐ valine

But what if your only choice for ISP is Comcast? 50 million Americans only have access to one ISP. You can't just switch providers when you only have one provider to choose from. Comcast could do this very easily and millions of Americans would be stuck paying more money for worse service.

⬐ beagle3

Netflix was throttled, mostly By Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon, which all have businesses competing with Netflix outside the internet.

⬐ JohnTHaller

The majority of Americans can't choose their broadband internet service provider. I live in NYC and have access to exactly one broadband provider. You don't think they'll come up with any reason they can to make up new service levels and add-ons to pad my bill?

⬐ isostatic

You have no 4G in NY?

⬐ JohnTHaller

You could get Verizon's connected home 4G service. It's $60 for 10GB. That would let you watch 3 movies on Netflix.

⬐ isostatic

I assume your building owner doesn't want you to install a new fibre? saying will sell you a 1gbit service for $1600pcm in midtown. How much are you willing to pay and for what?

⬐ zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC

Why exactly are ISPs opposing net neutrality if it's their intention anyway?

⬐ nitrogen

Not to mention no ISP in any other country has offered anything close to that either.

Facebook. India. So-called free basics.

⬐ CodeWriter23

You know what was different 15 years ago? It was before consumer broadband access was consolidated down to the point where a consumer 0 or 1 other choices other than their current provider.

⬐ prklmn

>>But they do care most about making money from the public and no one has convinced me that filtering internet packages by website makes any technical, marketing, or business model sense at all.

Charge internet companies for access to subscribers. Charge subscribers to access certain websites. It's a simple model.

>>No ISP for the ~15yr timeframe before the FTC regulation was passed a few years ago had ever offered such an arrangement.

Again, not true. https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/24/5541916/netflix-deal-with... https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/16010766/verizon-netflix-...

>>Plenty of ISPs have repeatedly said they have zero intention of doing it either (including a few this year). Not to mention no ISP in any other country has offered anything close to that either.

Why would you ever trust an ISP? If they were not going to take advantage of this new opportunity, then they should be fine with having the regulation stay in place. Also, wireless carriers which are in many ways analogous to ISPs already have started preying on consumers using this model https://imgur.com/yYobj7x

>>This has proven to be incredibly unpopular idea with the public for over a decade as well, whenever it has come up in the press. It wouldn't take much market research to see it's a terrible idea.

Market research and public opinion don't matter when you have no competition and have numerous state laws written for protection.

>>This would be a boon to any ISP who DIDN'T do this. Competition, and obvious lack of business sense, has always been a far larger counter-balance to this idea. Plus the huge technical challenge of filtering at the ISP level... this would be a huge boon for encryption and VPNs as well.

Again, there is little to no competition in most markets.

>>So I'm a bit confused why this is generating so much FUD over such a highly hypothetical and hand wavy scenario... as if the only thing stopping them from doing it was this three year old regulation.

It's not hypothetical at all, see above links. It's a big deal because it will ultimately be a huge wealth transfer away from consumers. You're not by chance Ajit Pai, are you?

⬐ bluetwo

The ISPs definitely did do this up until the point they were classified as regulated. They just did it in subtle ways, seeing how far they could push it without causing a backlash. Like limiting Netflix and BitTorrent. Despite being careful, they got classified.

Now, they explicitly are going to be unclassified, and we, the consumers, will be unprotected.

⬐ ghrifter

Shh you are going against the hive mind of people that watch a fucking comedian and accept his word as gospel and that this removal of title 2 "hurts muh free speech"

Internet companies didnt make fast lanes and shit for 20 years, removal of title 2 and suddenly they are? the fuck.

⬐ dragonwriter

> Internet companies didnt make fast lanes and shit for 20 years

I assume you mean 1984-2004, the 20 years preceding both the FCC first adopting and first acting to enforce network neutrality rules (under the title “Network Freedom” principles, which later became “Open Internet”.)

Since 2004 there've been all kinds of non-neutral action and an evolving approach to enforcing neutrality responding to court decisions closing off certain approaches until Title 2 was the only thing left.

⬐ Spivak

Are there any non-neutral actions that aren't behind the scenes peering disputes? Is there an example of an ISP using network policy to maliciously throttle or block traffic from their competitors?

⬐ s73ver_

I honestly don't get your argument. You're saying that, because they didn't do it while they were under regulation, they're not going to do it in the future?

If they're not going to do it, then why remove the regulation?

⬐ sctb

Could you please not do this and post civilly and substantively instead?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

⬐ skywhopper

You're assuming that most people have access to more than one ISP (they don't), or that statements by ISPs about what they intend to do or not do are truthful (they aren't). Specifically statements promising they would never do anything that would break net neutrality rules, while arguing against the imposition of net neutrality rules, would not make sense. Why oppose something you have no intention of doing?

⬐ collinmanderson

90% have at least two providers of 10Mbps+ speed, but only 20% have at least two providers of 25Mbps+ speed.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br...

That could change though as more providers are rolling out fiber. (AT&T just rolled out Fiber to the Home in my neighborhood, and Comcast says they will do the same soon.)

⬐ dllthomas

It should be noted that that's 90% of census blocks. IIUC, if one household has access to one provider, another household has access to a different provider, and no one else has any access, that's part of that 90%. If people aren't making their housing decisions based significantly on their choice of internet provider, that's not really competition.

⬐ Mankhool

How much of America is like this? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/21/republica...

⬐ dmix

> That could change though as more providers are rolling out fiber.

And Google's competition heavily incentivized that rolling out fiber. Imagine what the threat of a new entrant offering unthrottled internet would do to these hypothetical plans?

⬐ s73ver_

Why on earth should whether you get those plans or not depend on whether Google Jesus has decided to show his face upon you?

⬐ learc83

Google was a huge company that lost a lot of money trying to improve internet access through competition. Last I heard they decided to stop expanding, and access to anything comparable to Google Fiber is extremely limited.

⬐ djrogers

Directly from the article you linked:

> Even these numbers overstate the amount of competition, because an ISP might offer service to only part of a census block. The percentage of households with choice is thus even lower.

This is especially true with DSL @10mb - it’s common for DSL providers to have lower speeds for some customers due to distance limitations. Also, is 2 providers at 10mb really enough ‘choice’ to force the market to do the right thing here? Especially considering that those 2 providers are likely one of only 3 or 4 national ISPs...

I am a huge proponent of market freedom and market choices, but the system we have now has embedded natural and regulatory monopolies and duopolies - that’s the opposite of a free market.

⬐ dmix

My counter point does not depend entirely on competition. That is merely one counter-balance available to much of the country who have more than one ISP available, of the many I mentioned (technical, marketing, business model).

Why not create regulation in response to real scenarios that have actually happened instead of hypothetical ones that are already have plenty of other drawbacks?

⬐ dragonwriter

> Why not create regulation in response to real scenarios that have actually happened instead of hypothetical ones that are already have plenty of other drawbacks?

The FCC adopted NN principles in 2004 and did reactive, case-by-case enforcement of the principles without general regulation up until the federal courts stopped that approach in 2010. The two regulatory packages in 2010 and 2015 were largely based on the actual things that had been observed in the 2004-2010 period. That is, while they did consider and seek to preempt some new violations of the same principles, they were very much reactions to real scenarios that happened.

⬐ learc83

>real scenarios

Comcast didn't count movies streamed through there service against the monthly cap. They did count movies streamed through netflix.

⬐ s73ver_

If we don't want those things to happen, why allow them at all? Why wait, when we can just say up front, "Those things are not allowed to happen."

⬐ outsidetheparty

Have you forgotten the whole controversy about Verizon throttling Netflix back in July? This is a real scenario that has actually happened.

http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-netflix-youtube-throt...

Your other points hold up equally poorly: there are no unsolved technical hurdles in throttling or blocking specific sites or services -- as evidenced by the fact that they can and have already done so. As for "marketing" and "business model" and it being an "unpopular idea", these again fall back to the issue of consumer choice: in an effective monopoly, it doesn't matter a whit whether the populace dislikes the idea. It's not like Comcast is winning any popularity contests as it is.

⬐ dmix

That is different from the type of satellite-tv style packages ("Social media package, Facebook/Twitter, for only $9.99!") type of thing that people are talking about with net neutrality.

And the current FTC regulations in question didn't do anything in regards to that issue you linked to?

⬐ outsidetheparty

> That is different from the type of satellite-tv style packages ("Social media package, Facebook/Twitter, for only $9.99!") type of thing that people are talking about with net neutrality.

It's the flip side of the same coin. Without net neutrality, ISPs will be able to charge content providers like Netflix a toll to not be throttled out of viablity -- who will then presumably pass the costs on to end consumers -- or the ISPs can directly charge end consumers an extra toll for access to the full internet. (Of course they'll do both, after some experimentation to find the best profit::outrage ratio.)

> And the current FTC regulations in question didn't do anything in regards to that issue you linked to?

...they kinda did? In that Verizon had to back off and wait for net neutrality to be repealed before they could try again?

(I assume you meant FCC, not FTC, in all of this. The FTC, of course, doesn't have any authority here until after the common carrier regulations are lifted. So, roughly a month from now.)

⬐ himom

Very true. Rural folks have it worst: monopoly or no access at all. If a company like Sinclair also owned the broadband, only payola TV would work, YouTube access and bandwidth could a tiered add-on, they’d block whichever company didn’t pay the extortion protection money with no means of recourse.

Also, for everyone, billing would become more complexified, obscured to extract more money from consumers and thwart cost calculation and comparing with (the few remaining, if any) competitors.

⬐ milankragujevic

Don't people have access to 4G? I live in a tiny village (1000 people) and have 40/6 home Internet via 4G that I pay less than $10/mo with a 200 GB data cap that you can prepay $5 for 100 gb more if you spend it. I'm not from the U.S. though.

⬐ lbarrett

No. I have fast cellular internet but pay $10/GB, and I consider that a pretty good deal (total for me + wife is $45/mo, including cellular and data; in Portland, OR). Your 4G internet is cheaper than most people's wired internet here in the US.

⬐ clarky07

That sounds nice. I pay $75 a month for 10/1. LTE is higher speed, but significantly more expensive because of data caps.

⬐ TYPE_FASTER

I'm from the US and would love to get that service.

Fellow Americans, does it exist?

⬐ roryisok

What magical country are you from? I'm going to guess at somewhere in Northern Europe?

⬐ milankragujevic

It's Eastern Europe, Serbia to be precise. You can get unlimited high speed 4G for $30/mo without a contract. Vip mobile.

⬐ roryisok

Nice.

⬐ unclenoriega

I live just outside a town of 3000 (in the US). My wired (cable) connection costs $44.95/month ($54.95 without cable TV) for 10/1 with a 500GB cap.

Edit: I meant to imply that 4G would be more expensive. After checking briefly, the best offer I'm finding starts at $30/month for 5GB.

I thought this was quite high, since the net neutrality issue had a lot of coverage in the media, see for example the two John Oliver talks about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak

Here is the video of that episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak

Did someone happen to save the John Oliver original video? It shows "This video is not available" for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak

EDIT: was blocked in Canada, thanks NegatioN

⬐ NegatioN

That link is accessible from Norway at least. Maybe it's blocked in your region?

Looking what you write, I think you misunderstand what NN does.

The monopolies you mentioned have very little to do with NN. Someone already gave example how Facebook replaced MySpace, similarly Google, replaced Yahoo, AltaVista etc, I suppose Amazon did not replace anything, but started e-commerce (and currently creating other markets, like cloud computing), but it is getting higher and higher competition.

Apple and Microsoft existed before Internet and are just using their old position to leverage their existence, but the fact they face competition.

> EDIT: another question :) If net-neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with the tech monopolies maintaining their power position then why do they all support it? [https://internetassociation.org/]

Simple, because it expands powers of existing monopolies making them relevant. Perfect example is Netflix. They providing service to stream movies. They pay also pay large amounts of money for Internet access and ability to send content to their users. On the other side users similarly are paying for Internet access to be able to receive the content.

You would think it's double paying (and it kind of is), but it's normal, why users should subsidize Netflix costs or why Netflix should pay for users' access (since they are not only using Netflix) they just pay for their access to the network.

But, regional ISPs (in this case Comcast) started having "problems" where packets from Netflix were dropped, because "Netflix was sending too much data to them", ignoring the fact that that data Netflix was sending was requested by ISP's users who were already paying ISP to do one thing and do it well (i.e. deliver data they requested).

Things were kind of bad for the users (and users couldn't also switch their provider because at most they only had just another option which was equally as bad), until Netflix reached deal with Comcast where they pay Comcast to deliver the content (something that Comcast users are already paying for).

Net neutrality is trying to make sure this kind of manipulation is not allowed.

The thing with Netflix already happened but could easily be translated to other companies. For example (I'm borrowing it from here [1], I think you should watch it it explains the core issue very well IMO) Microsoft could pay so Bing has always fast access at cost of Google. Don't you want as a user to not have any company dictate you what you can access or not? Similarly those Internet companies also don't want to pay extra on top of what they already are paying. That's their interest. The only companies who would benefit from lack of NN are handful companies that deliver Internet to end users (especially companies like Comcast, TimeWarner/Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon etc) and lack of NN would give them huge power to bully anyone else.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak

Another brilliant piece by him. You can see it on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak

The FCC Chairmen wants to get rid of net neutrality the only thing keeping the internet open and free. He doesn't apparently have the same idea.

Here is a video to explain everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak

⬐ sebgeelen

Seems like the FCC already blocked the page mentioned in the video...

⬐ natejackdev

The current administration doesn't believe in facts, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were to shutdown the very thing that is going to stop them, Americans. The FCC office goes by there own agenda(Trumps) not the American people.