
FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey - mjfern
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171122/09473038669/fcc-releases-net-neutrality-killing-order-hopes-youre-too-busy-cooking-turkey-to-read-it.shtml
======
bitsnbytes
I think we are toast.

Last time during the title 2 classification we the people had the Online
Oligarch on our side. Not because Google,netflix , and amazon cared about the
people, but because out of their own survival. Had net neutrality principles
been killed then Google, netflix, and Amazon would have been at the mercy of
the customers ISP.

What worries me now is that I don't see the same level of efforts by the Big
online Oligarch, this time around. Heck, even google has slowed their google
fiber business.

I think we are seeing the creation of one of the biggest Oligarch alliance in
the making.

I wonder if the ISP oligarch and the online Oligarch have come to an agreement
where they will not compete with each other.

In other words Comcast won't go into the streaming business, search business ,
social media business, merchant business as long as
Netflix,google,facebook,twitter, and Amazon pay them a percentage.In return
comcast will throttle the existing Online Oligarchs competition.

Its a win for both the ISP and now the Online Oligarch. the end result doesn't
change the consumers get Fd and now will be at the mercy of both the ISP
oligarch and the Online Oligarch.

~~~
electricEmu
This might be my misunderstanding, but isn't that pretty much the definition
of collusion?

~~~
dmihal
What separates collusion from a business agreement?

~~~
bitsnbytes
I would say transparency and a formal written statement between business,
versus an agreement that is so unethical or illegal that nobody wants to put
their name on it or officially declare it to the public.

------
gkanai
Having lived in countries that separate access/transport from bits, this is
the way to do it (UK, Japan, etc.) Transport is like water or electricity - it
should be provided like a public utility. Internet services should be
competitive with different options or packages, etc. This allows for real
competition whereas the US has quasi/defacto monopolies for Internet in most
markets.

I just don't see how the US would get from where they are now, to a future
where access to the Internet is a utility and services are the competitive
layer.

~~~
philliphaydon
How is the UK considered good? (Serious question)

~~~
ionised
It's not perfect, but I (in the UK) have the choice of around 10 ISPs where I
am right now, and two of those use totally separate infrastructure from the
others.

I'm on 200Gbps with no data cap for £45. Seems overwhelmingly better that what
the US customer has right now.

~~~
Avernar
> 200Gbps

I take it you meant 200Mbps. Otherwiae you have better home internet than
everyone in the world and not juat the US.

~~~
ionised
Yes, sorry I did.

200Gbps would be quite a feat haha.

It is too late to edit now.

------
sehugg
Comcast is currently promoting a "we promise not to take advantage of the new
rules we spent millions lobbying for" tweet:
[https://twitter.com/comcast/status/933394263689351175](https://twitter.com/comcast/status/933394263689351175)

~~~
btgeekboy
Yeah, sure. They won't throttle, but they will conveniently not notice
saturated links until someone offers to pay them money to upgrade. Kinda like
how Verizon did a few years ago with Fios and Netflix.

~~~
ec109685
If Comcast starts sucking, 5G and other competitors are going to eat their
lunch. If users hate throttling and uneven networks, someone will swoop in
with a better product. Example: T-mobile and Sprint forcing companies like
Verizon to start offering unlimited plans again.

~~~
bitsnbytes
not likely or it would have already happened. Comcast and other ISP have
consistently rated among the top of most hated companies by its customer base.
I would love to tell comcast to F off but I have no choice to keep them as
they are the ONLY ISP that offer Fast Internet in my area like much of the
rest of the country.

[https://www.pcmag.com/news/350979/comcast-is-americas-
most-h...](https://www.pcmag.com/news/350979/comcast-is-americas-most-hated-
company) BTW sprint is also listed among the most hated.

~~~
ec109685
5G is going to solve this. You’ll affix a transmitter/receiver to a window of
your house and you can bypass your cable company.

The point still stands, if a company is introducing fast lanes and slow lanes
and it is making enough customers angry enough, a competitor will swoop in and
take their business.

Take an extreme example of Comcast only allowing HD streaming of Comcast owned
programming and throttling the rest. That would be so bad that folks would
cancel Comcast, which would provide an opportunity for a non atrocious company
to displace them.

As things currently stand, Comcast is good enough that a competitor can’t “out
customer service” them to displace them.

------
dailyvijeos
Don’t give into defeatism or learned helplessness. Fight back by calling
representatives and hounding the FCC. This is just the beginning and requires
perpetual vigilance.

~~~
rainbowmverse
I can't be perpetually vigilant about all the things that need perpetual
vigilance.

~~~
IIAOPSW
If only you had a representative in the federal government. Someone whose full
time job is to represent your interests...

oh shit.

~~~
rainbowmverse
That'd be great. I keep voting for the least awful ones (when there's an
actual choice), but I keep getting wealthy anti-science technophobes.

------
esaym
I still hope this will somehow increase competition. If AT&T, Spectrum, etc
start charging more to view youtube, then perhaps this will get the Google
fiber train rolling again. Perhaps...

~~~
bitsnbytes
If I recall correctly Google started winding down their google fiber efforts
after the title 2 classification. If they continue to slow it down, then you
will absolutely know we are Fd and some alliance between the Online Oligarch
and ISP has been formed.

Its not looking good

~~~
siffland
I would switch to Google fiber in an instance if available. They just data
mine. I don't think They throttle. We have time warner and AT&T. That is it.
How is that for competition. At least in 4 years this president will be voted
out and the new one will probably get rid of this.

~~~
bitsnbytes
I would switch to Google fiber in a second too. Not just because they are
better and offer more for less, but because I cant wait till the day comes
that I can tell Comcast to F off for good.

------
aerovistae
Just have to count on SpaceX to put the telecoms out of business over the
coming years.

------
sebleon
Kinda sucks for near term, but this is going to create economic pressure and
consumer demand for a Comcast killer.

One possibility is a wireless ISP via satellite or city-wide mesh.

~~~
intended
People keep forgetting that telecom is not a typical B2C market. Telecom is
not like a lemonade stand - low barriers to entry, low cost of goods, no
moats, etc. etc.

There is Huge capex, land rights, spectrum rights, compliance and more that
have to be handled.

Just getting into it will not be possible - because _any_ solution will
require access to some limited transmission medium.

If it weren't for that single limit imposed by reality, this would be a
different market.

~~~
sebleon
The limitations you described are true for a wired approach to last mile
internet delivery to every user.

You can get around these problems as a wireless ISP using spectrum in the
public domain. Idea is that you beam connectivity to a router in each
subscriber's home. You'll need to install nodes that connect a wireless
network to fiber optic cables, but these connections are much more accessible
than wiring up every building in a city.

~~~
ytpete
Isn't that basically Google Fi? See post
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15769192](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15769192)
above for some examples of entrenched landline ISPs like AT&T interfering with
this approach...

------
anonu
Im strongly in favor of net neutrality. But let's just play devil's advocate
here a bit to temper the end-of-the-world view on all this: what if there is
good that comes out of this "Internet Freedom Act"... One potential outcome is
increased fragmentation, competition and choice via multiple smaller ISPs.
Potentially a good thing?

Maybe we will see alternative protocols or network technologies that can
bypass typical network controls - further strengthening the Internet's
resiliency.

~~~
rainbowmverse
How would getting rid of net neutrality lead to this?

~~~
anonu
Free Markets... a shift away from control by a few big players to a more
distributed and even playing field - where we aren't at the mercy of
oligopolies. Instead of net neutrality imposed by the government - we vote for
it with our decision of ISP and with our dollars.

~~~
rainbowmverse
You didn't answer the question. How does getting rid of a policy made in 2015
in response to ISPs abusing their overwhelming control of the market lead to
this future? ISPs have only consolidated their power further since then. Most
people have no choice in ISP.

~~~
Mary-Jane
The 2015 policy was not made in response to anything but fear - the same sort
of fear mongering heralded in countless articles across the web. Since those
rules were implemented investment in infrastructure has fallen, not risen, due
to increased uncertainty about the regulatory situation.

Repealing these rules won't help matters, and it won't result in the horror
stories almost everyone here seems to think it will. The recent tendency of
the Executive to legislate creates a regulatory climate that shifts on the
whims of whichever administration happens to be in power. Why would Verizon or
Sprint go through the hassle of building their Evil Empire when the Warren
administration will just tear it down and imprison their execs when she wins
the presidency in 3 years? They won't. Smart business will allocate their
resources conservatively and pander to the party most likely to place
restrictions on them.

~~~
ytpete
Some of what you're saying is false. Investment has increased since 2015, not
fallen. And these policy changes were made in response to real - not imagined
- abuses, such as specific ISPs blocking VoIP, AT&T blocking Skype on iPhones,
and Verizon blocking Google Wallet.

This article has some good context on this:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/courts-net-
neutra...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/courts-net-neutrality-
fcc.html)

------
ASalazarMX
My condolences. Its a very unfair match when only one side gets to make the
rules.

------
alistproducer2
The more I read about this, the more I think this will be held up in the
courts for a while.

~~~
matt_wulfeck
Not sure there’s a ton of hope here. The rule being rolled back was simply an
executive action, not a law. This is why we need our legislatures to _get to
work_ providing _laws_ that protect our privacy and not leave us at the whim
of the executive office.

~~~
SpikeDad
Which legislature would that be?

~~~
matt_wulfeck
My preference is all of them: municipal, state, and federal.

~~~
cududa
I believe there was a directive included that states and municipalities can't
implement their own net neutrality laws :/

