
ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws - sqdbps
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180409/09020639593/broadband-industry-aims-to-use-facebook-fracas-to-saddle-silicon-valley-with-crappy-new-laws.shtml
======
drawkbox
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-
is...](https://eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-your-isp-could-do-
if-congress-repeals-fccs-privacy-protections)

[2] [https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/op-
ed-f...](https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/op-ed-for-the-
wall-street-journal)

~~~
ethbro
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...

~~~
joe_the_user
_I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being
discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations._

Technically, "Big web" would be perhaps a structural oligopoly [1] or you
could say the market has monopolistic competition[2]. they're protected by the
network effect, they provide unique products that are hard to duplicate. They
are not actual monopolies as economists define them (and not really monopolies
in the popular understanding either).

But ISPs are straight, government-granted monopolies [3]. Such companies have
essentially one incentive, be good at influencing regulators and legislators.

Glibly equating these market structures distorts the situation.

As to why ISPs should be regulated in the name of neutrality and privacy?
Well, they _already are highly regulated_. They are _creations_ of regulation.
The public damn well should get something _out_ of that regulation,
especially, the regulation is all about ameliorating the abusive situation
their (actual, not pseudo) monopoly position invites.

[1]
[http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Oligopol...](http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Oligopoly.html)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition)
[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-
granted_monopoly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly)

~~~
ethbro
So your contention is that structural oligopolies (or markets with
monopolistic competition) should _not_ be regulated?

I'd be curious to know why.

~~~
joe_the_user
_So your contention is that structural oligopolies (or markets with
monopolistic competition) should not be regulated?_

That's nowhere in my argument. I merely pointed that government grant
monopolies pretty much automatically _should_ be regulated since they are
virtually extensions of government fiat already ("we" give Comcast etc a
monopoly on placement on phone poles and similar stuff, we should get
something for that) and that this situation isn't comparable to monopolistic
competition.

If you're curious, I think actual private companies should be regulated when
their actions involve negative externalities [1] in their production process -
chemical companies should not be able to dump toxins into rivers, broadly
greenhouse gases should be limited, etc.

One might argue that Facebook selling people's data to the highest bidder is
another kind of negative externality. I would argue that a better outcome is
consumer education, gradually people learn whatever they post online has a
significant risk of being public. Similarly, it's better for people to learn
not to be manipulated by simple schemes than to imagine a firewall against the
manipulations of evil people. Just consider that a firewall against
manipulations of evil people would _let in the manipulation of "good people"_,
right? Perhaps that's the whole idea.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality)

~~~
rayiner
> we" give Comcast etc a monopoly on placement on phone poles and similar
> stuff, we should get something for that) and that this situation isn't
> comparable to monopolistic competition.

Comcast doesn’t have a monopoly on placing things on utility poles. Poles are
mostly owned by power companies or the local phone company, and those entities
are required to lease pole space to everyone at non-discriminatory rates.

------
scottie_m
Silicon Valley needs new laws, accept that, and make the fight about ensuring
those laws aren’t burdensome, anticompetitive, and downright stupid. If you
spend your energy trying to make those laws not happen at all, they’ll be done
to us and not with us. It’s time to accept that a significant (more than 65%)
of people want regulations in the tech space, and calmly, patiently explain
what kinds of regulations can be helpful and which would be disastrous. Accept
that it will be a matter of compromise (at best) and that means no one will be
entirely happy.

~~~
sambull
Silicon Valley doesn't need new laws that's bullshit. People and privacy need
strong laws that protect them. Irregardless of who's doing it.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
That's a great point.

 _I_ need the protection. We don't need to go and start creating huge
regulatory bodies around various industries, pitting one against the other.
Make it so my information can't be captured -- or it can't be shared. Or make
it so that keeping any information of mine past 30 days is a felony.

Then no matter who the businesses are, people can sue them and owners can go
to jail.

Instead of trying to figure out exactly where the tech is right now, and how
things might change? Bullshit. Protect _me_. With enough protections, the rest
of it will work itself out.

~~~
state_less
I think the problem is the roll back of net neutrality for ISPs and at the
same time calling for regulation on content providers. It doesn't seem like
these interests are protecting the citizens.

Anyhow, I do agree we should be protecting peoples right to privacy and
unfettered access to the internet.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
You're right, of course, but as scottie_m points out, the main issue here is
one around messaging.

The enemy of getting this fixed is complexity. Once we start targeting
individual companies, types of internet connections, or hardware devices?
We've lost. It's all over.

It's not these things don't need fixing, it's that we have about ten words or
so to put into a slogan. That slogan needs to be repeated over and over again.
I am a firm believer in Net Neutrality -- but that's not the right slogan to
march under. If we get Net Neutrality and everything else stays the same, it's
a complete loss.

By shifting the focus to each user, we can talk more directly about benefits.
And by making penalties perhaps draconian, we can leave the management of the
complexities to the vendors, where it belongs, instead of the public debate,
where the lawyers win.

Privacy and anonymity are much bigger fish to fry than whether YouTube costs
more than Instagram. If we could come up with a simple slogan to cover both of
them, sign me up. Otherwise? We gotta stop everybody from putting telemetry on
every detail of our lives.

Before the 60s in the U.S., there was pervasive and deeply-held racism, but
most people didn't see it, even those who wanted to be morally superior to
everybody else. (See the movie "The Help"). Many times I think of what that
issue is for us. What will we look back on in 50 years as being barbaric and
evil? What is our current equivalent to the Civil Rights campaigns?

It's storing tracking data about the minute parts of people's lives. We will
either morally overcome this or we will enter a new Dark Ages. There's no
middle ground. Here. Here is the moral battle.

~~~
state_less
It's not just the Net Neutrality rules, along with Obama era Net Neutrality
rules that were set to be put in place, there were security and privacy rules
that ISPs also overturned. If we simply regulate the content providers, we
won't get privacy on the internet and we'll also reward ISPs for their
lobbying and manipulation.

ISPs don't need to collect our data to provide service, yet they do. Content
providers don't need to track us, yet they do. They both need to be addressed,
or as you say, "we've lost." So, Privacy Now! Or some better clarion call.

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/verizon-asks-
fcc...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/verizon-asks-fcc-to-
preempt-any-state-privacy-or-net-neutrality-law/)

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/trumps-
signature...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/trumps-signature-
makes-it-official-isp-privacy-rules-are-dead/)

------
carlmcqueen
Can we please lump the data leaks of Equifax and the like in with the need for
these new laws that shift user data from something companies are mining to
something they are protecting and disclosing?

~~~
lithos
ISPs are planning to get into the data game. They aim to have laws that limit
SV type startups, rather than increase their future liability.

~~~
mortenjorck
The only good outcome will be for this to backfire _spectacularly_ with
privacy protections that limit ISPs just as much as the tech companies.

The ISPs are already playing a dangerous game. Unlike their buddies at the
FCC, congress is elected, and with enough popular pressure (and midterms
coming up), they can be persuaded to do the right thing.

~~~
aerotwelve
Particularly since the perceptions of the telecom industry are not exactly
positive as a whole.

It's worth raising a question -- do the executives at
AT&T/Comcast/Mediacom/Verizon really think that the public is on their side?

------
mkirklions
As someone that is programming a finance tech app, every regulation is bad for
the future.

I am not afraid of regulation but its an annoying burden to keep big players
big, and small players non-existent.

Most people do not have the money or motivation I have, and those people lose
out because of regulations.

Never let a good tragedy go to waste.

~~~
moate
If you don't regulate you allow bad players to keep doing bad things.

If you do regulate you force bad players to work harder to keep doing bad
things.

I understand that regulation has negative side effects and unintended
consequences. But truly free markets lead to child labor and depressed worker
wages. It's impossible to craft perfect regulations, but it's implausible to
assume "everything will just sort itself out if we let the free market be
completely free" since that has literally never happened on a broad scale.

------
simion314
IF there is a war between ISPs and social networks maybe we get some benefits
like the practices of ISPs and social networks getting more public for the
regular person.

------
cwyers
This article feels so slanted it's unreadable. Conceding that Facebook and
Google probably actually do need to be regulated happens near the very bottom
of the article; until then you'd be forgiven for thinking that the ISPs made
all their concerns about those companies up.

~~~
_bxg1
Agreed. Silicon Valley could frankly use some "crappy new laws". Of course, so
could ISP's, and that didn't happen.

------
Gargoyle
HN users have been pounding loudly on the anti-Facebook wardrums. Where did
you imagine that going?

~~~
saagarjha
A place where Facebook changes their policy to take into account their users'
privacy?

------
yalogin
Is there any website that documents who all the ISPs sell our data to? Or at
least can we know how much they earn from our data?

------
macspoofing
ISPs and traditional media outlets (old media).

------
walshemj
"Oh dear how sad" hand back your licence then :-)

------
bitrazor123
Frankly as an end-user , one has to choose between bad and worse. Consumers
are a true product now, readily available for exploitation

~~~
quantized1
And to worsen the legal system doesn't come to rescue. Infact they joined hand
with business and created a bible size EULA with legal jargon, which end-user
have to accept and move forward.

------
sqdbps
So does the news industry.

------
908087
Techdirt really doesn't live up to its name. When that site isn't actively
avoiding major stories that make Silicon Valley megacorps look bad, they're
busily defending the Surveillance Valley business model outright.

The "ISPs are bad, therefore Silicon Valley should be allowed to continue
running roughshod over users' privacy" narrative is really idiotic. It tries
to present this as a situation where we have a choice of either regulating
ISPs, or regulating privacy-invading Silicon Valley surveillance corporations,
but not both.

Edit: I just read the full article, and yes maybe my assumption wasn't
charitable. That said, I had just got done reading this article where Mike
Masnick encourages us to continue giving the benefit of the doubt to someone
who has repeatedly violated trust for more than a decade, which left me _ass_
uming it would just be more of the same.

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180408/22400539590/faceb...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180408/22400539590/facebook-
derangement-syndrome-company-has-problems-must-we-read-worst-into-absolutely-
everything.shtml)

~~~
jklinger410
Your comment reflects a bad faith reading of the article and actually doesn't
reflect the content of what was written.

Maybe read the article next time and not make such a low-effort comment.

~~~
908087
Most of what I've read on techdirt over the past couple years seems to
represent a bad faith effort to frame the current situation as "ISPs vs.
Silicon Valley and the users", where the reality of the situation is "ISPs and
Silicon Valley vs. the users" (and there's a recent situation in California
where the ISPs teamed up with Silicon Valley to prove that point). It's hard
to give the benefit of the doubt to that site at this point.

..and I say this as someone who used to be a big fan of that site. It's
disappointing.

------
dsfyu404ed
The people who make up the tech industry been a huge proponent of regulating
all sorts of things at all scales, from individual actions to small businesses
to large corporations.

The use of the FB/CA "scandal" to promote knee jerk legislation that burdens
the tech industry is just tech being on the receiving end of something they
have no qualms about advocating for when it happens to a different industry.

~~~
Consultant32452
This is a bit like the old adage about noticing how bad news reporting is in
areas you're an expert, but then just blindly swallowing all other news. In
this case it's regulation rather than news coverage.

------
mtgx
Silicon Valley brought this to itself. I used to warn of this before, too,
that they can't continue to do "evil stuff" and expect to have people's
backing when the governments will come after them to regulate them for
whatever reason. But they continued because they saw that nobody leaves them
over the crap they pull so they thought there must be no consequences to their
anti-consumer moves.

The only downside I see is that governments will use this excuse to bring more
censorship and anti-encryption laws, too, and I _hate_ that Silicon Valley
companies put is in a position where we have to either put up with their crap
or side with governments and get some bad internet laws passed.

But right now, I think it's time to rein in on the Silicon Valley companies
over their abuse of user data. Then we can deal with the abuse of user data by
ISPs, data brokers, and everyone else. Ideally, this would be solved with a
GDPR-like law, so that even ISPs "lose" in this scenario, and the consumers
win. If we're lucky we may be able to stave off the government from trying to
put an anti-encryption bill into the whole thing.

~~~
Reedx
That's like what the game industry went through in the early 90s. When Mortal
Kombat and the like were generating controversy and getting the attention of
regulators, the industry proactively created the ESRB.

~~~
jerf
There's a big difference though. "The video game industry" wasn't really in
the business of creating video games that offended cultural norms. It had a
subcomponent of that industry that did it, sure, but even that subcomponent
would have survived by making different games with regulation.

There is a lot of Silicon Valley right now whose core business is doing the
things that are very likely to be regulated out of existence.

So I'd say self-regulation isn't an option at this point, as "self-regulation"
is asking Facebook to return to unprofitability with no prospect of profit in
the future, the destruction of huge swathes of the ad industry, any number of
other companies based around data mining and selling and abusing information
asymmetries... there's no way the wolves are going to self-regulate themselves
into dogs.

