It's obvious they are just making shit up and referenced something unrelated (DSL deregulation) to make it seem legitimate. The person who wrote it probably knew it was a stretch. I don't see how this article is that interesting or will generate much interesting conversations here on HN.
This is politics baseless future-promises 101 stuff, just at a new completely not-giving-a-shit level. Which is only mildly interesting.
The question of whether the deregulation will do anything at all is still open to be seen. I've long said that tiered ISP pricing will never be a thing (ie, Comcast offering a "movies and social network package" vs a normal broadband monthly deal or mobile operators doing the same), regardless of lack of FCC protection, because it just doesn't make any sense as a business model or service, not to mention it would face a big industry backlash - an industry the whole arrangement relies on. But I got downvoted plenty before on HN early on by people who think we need it written down into law and enforced by FCC, regardless of its practicality, which I guess is fair.
But I still see very little (or almost zero) industry movement towards any of those scenarios people were claiming was going to happen a year or two ago during all the hysteria over the move to "deregulate" the FCC.
There was always far more in the way of those anti-net neutrality worst-case scenarios becoming reality than the FCC, IMO. The proposed scenarios only vaguely make sense in the developing world, not in the US, in places where you could bottom out pricing for access to networks, but it's already so cheap and established I don't see how any company could survive legitimately offering artificially limited internet access (beyond government protected oligopolies like we have here in Canada all agreeing to do it at the same time, which is again a huge stretch and nothing to do with the FCC).
Because the industry executives are as dumb as the politicians and had no other ideas to move the needle on what is essentially a static commodity like the electricity grid in a plateauing market.
Doesn't mean it was ever a practical idea.
I've always said we can make laws when or if it actually happens. Because in the meantime we've all been getting upset and wasting time over highly impractical scenarios... and net neutrality has had a serious force and backing, which is good. But in regards to the FCC there's so many more important things to be spending our hacker concern-resources on IMO. For example the FCC (or FTC) should be looking into the millions of Indian (et al) call scammers which are wrecking havoc across the western world - which is an obvious and very real epidemic of fraud that is happening right now and very few western gov are doing anything about the millions of older people getting scammed every day. Much of which transits through legit American infrastructure and web services.
Then wake me up when a single ISP or mobile operator does anything close to what people have been claiming they will do.
It may not have ended up in the nightmare scenario but I still pay Comcast more money for less service now. If I want unlimited data I have to shell out $50 extra a month.
Also this is a symptom of a bigger problem.
You want the FCC to focus on problems which you feel are more serious. That's fine. I agree. The FCC should do something. Anything. The problem is the FCC is weak as hell and not willing to take meaningful action on basically anything at this point.
I’m paying Comcast ~$50 a month for a decently fast connection, and 1TB monthly data transfer, it’s actually cheaper, faster, and a higher limit than it was for the equivalent plan 10 years ago.
The last time I had Comcast was 2016. I did not have a bandwidth cap and they had only just instituted it in a few test markets.
Now it is nation-wide.
I get slightly more speed than I did back then, but I'd trade that extra speed for no bandwidth cap in a heartbeat. Obviously usage depends on person and plenty of people won't notice cap but I can easily drop 1/10th of my monthly bandwidth budget on a single game on steam these days.
I will admit that I too was worried about net neutrality as being one of the downfalls of the web. But I do feel like the conversation has shifted to Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit, etc having such dominant positions and that they can influence even political outcomes, pick winners and losers, etc. The web needs more competition.
> I still see very little (or almost zero) industry movement towards any of those scenarios people were claiming was going to happen a year or two ago during all the hysteria over the move to "deregulate" the FCC.
> I've long said that tiered ISP pricing will never be a thing (ie, Comcast offering a "movies and social network package" vs a normal broadband monthly deal or mobile operators doing the same), regardless of lack of FCC protection, because it just doesn't make any sense as a business model or service, not to mention it would face a big industry backlash - an industry the whole arrangement relies on.
This argument is bizarre because it’s already a thing! Just not in the US. For example, Telcel Mexico offers unlimited “social media” plans[1].
It’s not clear why US carriers have not moved forward with similar plans. Perhaps they’re waiting for the patchwork of state net neutrality laws to be repealed/overturned. But this isn’t some purely hypothetical business model.
They are absolutely moving forward with similar plans under the banner of "5G." 5G is nothing but a big Trojan Horse. I am amazed that more tech people have not caught onto this yet.
5G a total rebuild of the internet being sold to consumers (ineffectively) as an upgrade for higher speeds, while the true purpose is to enable non-net-neutral service agreements with network slicing.
I've been to Mexico so many times all over the country and they have cheaper access to mobile networks than any western country I've been to. That alone makes it a terrible example for western developed countries which was always the context of my comment. Not to mention I'd love to see the penetration and market ROI numbers for what you claim is a legitimate service offering we should be worried about in Mexico alone.
The idea that moving from <1mbps-10mbps to basically decent quality fiber speeds on your phone will result in reduced access to networks (via finely controlled interception and inspection) sounds stupid to me. And as I said it only makes sense in the developing world where there are actually customers who would buy such a thing, and even then only a tiny niche. But in the western world, to expect the entire market to be so anti-consumer and roll backwards like that, that still sounds like a fantasy to me.
I'm not dumb enough to say that giant oligopolies won't try but I highly doubt it will go beyond speculation let alone ever become anything close to 0.1% of the marketshare within the country, let alone globally. It's not a serious threat that can't be dealt with by existing means, even those that roll out well before it ruins anything real.
Meanwhile Indian scammers, who for a significant number we already have the addresses and names of and who use American phone services (as shown in the sublinked video) make hundreds of millions off westerners and literally nothing is being done by the US to a real and active anti-consumer threat that exists today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le71yVPh4uk
I will be concerned about US net neutrality when and/or if it actually becomes anything close to a real threat and I mean that (ie, companies proposing a serious rollout with pricing and other specifics instead of very broad speculation that they need it to capture more value from the market, which some dumb politician buys into).
I figured I'd mention it since it's sorta related. But no such thing as net neutrality exists for text messaging to carriers. I believe that calls have to land from any destination by default, but text messaging (SMS usually) has no regulation forcing it. When it first launched you couldn't even SMS message outside your own carrier.
Previously, you just made sure a message was compliant with regulations and paid the usual rate to send it. Not anymore, pay to play with each carrier!
> The question of whether the deregulation will do anything at all is still open to be seen.
Because not all variables are well-defined and outcomes known is not a reason to do nothing. You don't always just wait until you're neck deep in the consequences to begin considering the solving it.
If there's a well-established tendency for a problem to occur, it's prudent to consider measures that may prevent it and/or have contingencies ready for such events. Especially when there is documented historical precedent AND potential solutions.
Moreso when it is regarding a resource that having reasonable access to can have very real, material effects on people's lives. The obvious examples being clean water, electricity, and various means of communication, reliably and affordably available. It's hardly a discussion at this point as to whether internet access is one of those resources, so it seems entirely acceptable to risk overshooting on protecting access.
> I don't see how any company could survive legitimately offering artificially limited internet access
Many ISPs are monopolies in their markets. You may have the privilege of choice where you lived, but I’ve been in a state capital city where if you wanted broadband cable internet you had to get it from one provider, since they owned all the infrastructure.
You could try to make your cell phone act as a hot spot (or buy a mobile hotspot that used cellular reception from a different vendor), but that was hit or miss depending on your proximity to a tower.
Your statement would make sense where people had a legitimate choice of a provider. But for many people, there is only one choice for broadband in their market.
So you're telling us the DowJones is down 4,000 this week because of a sickness with a death rate of 2.3%...are you sure it is not something else?
Global stock markets have lost $6 trillion in value in six days. It possibly because Soros, Putin, and others are moving money out of the US so that it cannot be taken in lawsuits resulting from their involvement in the story below. Unless of course you believe it is because of COVID19 aka Coronavirus, a sickness with a 2.3% death rate. See below:
Attorney General Barr is not resigning; not before President Trump does. Barr is the same as Mueller,Pelosi,Schiff, & Nadler: feign opposition to cover the true motive of obstruction to keep Trump in power. Supreme Court Justice Alito & FBI Deputy Director Wray also on board. See latest updates
"Impeachment" Is A Diversion And Delay - Part II: Blocking of the "impeachment" witnesses was collusion planned before the new year. Listen to an FBI agent's disclosure from January 1, 2O2O here. The President was to resign late summer securing election for DNC. See latest updates.
Here is the zip file, which was also made available in the 3Jan2O2O update. The file within is VID_20200101_201948.mp3. Turn up the volume and put on headphones.
The dialogue about the impeachment starts near the beginning. Having Biden in the White House is as good as Trump or anyone else in their organization. Obviously Schiff and Nadler pledged their allegiance to the organization by raping boys on the record, with their task being to drag out an impeachment designed to obstruct and delay any real efforts to remove the President, thus keeping Trump in power. The witness blocking was to cause an apparent uproar delaying things with legal actions until late Summer. Soon after, the President would resign, leaving any other candidate with not enough time or support to compete with an opportunistic Biden, who is as good as Trump or any other Illuminati friendly politician in the Presidency.
\Wag The Dog: first was feigned impeachment hearings meant to obstruct, now an attack on Iranians in Iraq. Here is what they are trying to distract from & cover up to retain power. $100+ billion in bribes to the highest offices in this country. 815+ deaths from child rapes to prove loyalty!
See the latest PDF updates: FBI Director Wray, AG Barr, SoD Shanahan, & SoS Pompeo each raped boys and were paid billions in bribes for a Soros & Koch funded child rape org. So did Trump & his "impeachment" team Nadler,Schiff,Mueller.So did media moguls Redstone,Murdoch,Moonves. What are they trying to set up? Who can arrest them since they are all bribed and in on it ?
Their strategy to stay in every office and obstruct until forced to leave no matter what. Feigning impeachment: see page 13O. Hoiohiuhrfe, jknbjkevew, vrmnowenbgewrg. port.
\\if;Download the video/audio file, put on headphones and turn up the volume. You will hear these people committing these crimes. Audio was broadcast into my apartment by outdated surveillance equipment illegally embedded within my walls. This very same technology was being used to broadcast me to the internet for five years without my consent. I own this footage...
This is the sort of "made up data that is politically convenient" that I would expect to see only from the most corrupt governments in some of the poorest, most underdeveloped parts of the world, not from the most powerful nation on earth. I'm speechless.
Why would the USA not be corrupt just because it's a powerful nation? It covertly surveils its entire population and can strip citizens of their rights if they think they're terrorists. If anything, their power just makes the corruption worse.
Because it's a democracy with a very well established bureaucratic epidermis that stretches from federal to local level. It's a vast and complex entity that operates on defined rules.
Until trump, the infection of fickle, cynical politics never made it very deep because the folks operating in that bureaucratic layer were career people with operational ethics (and frankly were quite boring-- by design), not nominated people. The sycophants are purging those people now. The rot is making its way deeper into the inner workings of the country like a cancer.
Now they're not afraid of lying because that's what their rulers want them to do. Do whatever it takes to make the boss look good or suffer the consequences. That's the kind of behavior you expect from North Korea. Not the USA.
Wouldn't that show it harmed the consumer, to the tune of $50B (~$170 each)?
I just heard Ajit Pai (sp?) talking on Freakonomics podcast, he was lying really effectively. Impressive interviewing nonetheless, probing but not badgering.
If they charged by the KB, it could have been over $100B a year....
Fake numbers and political theater are not a substitute for substance, and since the stewards in government have officially gone mad (a front for an embezzlement scheme), we should just go ahead and fast-forward a best-case scenario for a poisoned well.....
In a whimsical kind of way, we just need the greybeards to agree that TCP/IP did not get it right (the 1st time) and go back to the drawing/drafting board to innovate a more robust offering of encapsulation.
Bullies winning all of the special Olympic trophies has never been particularly entertaining, but I guess their persistence is something to be admired. Maybe they are special?!?!?!
35 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 82.3 ms ] threadThis is politics baseless future-promises 101 stuff, just at a new completely not-giving-a-shit level. Which is only mildly interesting.
The question of whether the deregulation will do anything at all is still open to be seen. I've long said that tiered ISP pricing will never be a thing (ie, Comcast offering a "movies and social network package" vs a normal broadband monthly deal or mobile operators doing the same), regardless of lack of FCC protection, because it just doesn't make any sense as a business model or service, not to mention it would face a big industry backlash - an industry the whole arrangement relies on. But I got downvoted plenty before on HN early on by people who think we need it written down into law and enforced by FCC, regardless of its practicality, which I guess is fair.
But I still see very little (or almost zero) industry movement towards any of those scenarios people were claiming was going to happen a year or two ago during all the hysteria over the move to "deregulate" the FCC.
There was always far more in the way of those anti-net neutrality worst-case scenarios becoming reality than the FCC, IMO. The proposed scenarios only vaguely make sense in the developing world, not in the US, in places where you could bottom out pricing for access to networks, but it's already so cheap and established I don't see how any company could survive legitimately offering artificially limited internet access (beyond government protected oligopolies like we have here in Canada all agreeing to do it at the same time, which is again a huge stretch and nothing to do with the FCC).
Doesn't mean it was ever a practical idea.
I've always said we can make laws when or if it actually happens. Because in the meantime we've all been getting upset and wasting time over highly impractical scenarios... and net neutrality has had a serious force and backing, which is good. But in regards to the FCC there's so many more important things to be spending our hacker concern-resources on IMO. For example the FCC (or FTC) should be looking into the millions of Indian (et al) call scammers which are wrecking havoc across the western world - which is an obvious and very real epidemic of fraud that is happening right now and very few western gov are doing anything about the millions of older people getting scammed every day. Much of which transits through legit American infrastructure and web services.
Then wake me up when a single ISP or mobile operator does anything close to what people have been claiming they will do.
Also this is a symptom of a bigger problem.
You want the FCC to focus on problems which you feel are more serious. That's fine. I agree. The FCC should do something. Anything. The problem is the FCC is weak as hell and not willing to take meaningful action on basically anything at this point.
Now it is nation-wide.
I get slightly more speed than I did back then, but I'd trade that extra speed for no bandwidth cap in a heartbeat. Obviously usage depends on person and plenty of people won't notice cap but I can easily drop 1/10th of my monthly bandwidth budget on a single game on steam these days.
Look up "network slicing"
This argument is bizarre because it’s already a thing! Just not in the US. For example, Telcel Mexico offers unlimited “social media” plans[1].
It’s not clear why US carriers have not moved forward with similar plans. Perhaps they’re waiting for the patchwork of state net neutrality laws to be repealed/overturned. But this isn’t some purely hypothetical business model.
[1] https://www.telcel.com/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03085...
What does this mean?
The idea that moving from <1mbps-10mbps to basically decent quality fiber speeds on your phone will result in reduced access to networks (via finely controlled interception and inspection) sounds stupid to me. And as I said it only makes sense in the developing world where there are actually customers who would buy such a thing, and even then only a tiny niche. But in the western world, to expect the entire market to be so anti-consumer and roll backwards like that, that still sounds like a fantasy to me.
I'm not dumb enough to say that giant oligopolies won't try but I highly doubt it will go beyond speculation let alone ever become anything close to 0.1% of the marketshare within the country, let alone globally. It's not a serious threat that can't be dealt with by existing means, even those that roll out well before it ruins anything real.
Meanwhile Indian scammers, who for a significant number we already have the addresses and names of and who use American phone services (as shown in the sublinked video) make hundreds of millions off westerners and literally nothing is being done by the US to a real and active anti-consumer threat that exists today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le71yVPh4uk
I will be concerned about US net neutrality when and/or if it actually becomes anything close to a real threat and I mean that (ie, companies proposing a serious rollout with pricing and other specifics instead of very broad speculation that they need it to capture more value from the market, which some dumb politician buys into).
What this has evolved into this year is that telcos now get to charge marketers extra money for the ability to send to their customers. For example: https://support.bandwidth.com/hc/en-us/articles/360041687274...
Previously, you just made sure a message was compliant with regulations and paid the usual rate to send it. Not anymore, pay to play with each carrier!
Because not all variables are well-defined and outcomes known is not a reason to do nothing. You don't always just wait until you're neck deep in the consequences to begin considering the solving it.
If there's a well-established tendency for a problem to occur, it's prudent to consider measures that may prevent it and/or have contingencies ready for such events. Especially when there is documented historical precedent AND potential solutions.
Moreso when it is regarding a resource that having reasonable access to can have very real, material effects on people's lives. The obvious examples being clean water, electricity, and various means of communication, reliably and affordably available. It's hardly a discussion at this point as to whether internet access is one of those resources, so it seems entirely acceptable to risk overshooting on protecting access.
Many ISPs are monopolies in their markets. You may have the privilege of choice where you lived, but I’ve been in a state capital city where if you wanted broadband cable internet you had to get it from one provider, since they owned all the infrastructure.
You could try to make your cell phone act as a hot spot (or buy a mobile hotspot that used cellular reception from a different vendor), but that was hit or miss depending on your proximity to a tower.
Your statement would make sense where people had a legitimate choice of a provider. But for many people, there is only one choice for broadband in their market.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/study-720...
Attorney General Barr is not resigning; not before President Trump does. Barr is the same as Mueller,Pelosi,Schiff, & Nadler: feign opposition to cover the true motive of obstruction to keep Trump in power. Supreme Court Justice Alito & FBI Deputy Director Wray also on board. See latest updates
"Impeachment" Is A Diversion And Delay - Part II: Blocking of the "impeachment" witnesses was collusion planned before the new year. Listen to an FBI agent's disclosure from January 1, 2O2O here. The President was to resign late summer securing election for DNC. See latest updates.
Here is the zip file, which was also made available in the 3Jan2O2O update. The file within is VID_20200101_201948.mp3. Turn up the volume and put on headphones.
BB10Mp3Footage31Dec1Jan.zip 122.4mb
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IXOOhQhHybwky8Z5pGdr9ZXhWpI...
The dialogue about the impeachment starts near the beginning. Having Biden in the White House is as good as Trump or anyone else in their organization. Obviously Schiff and Nadler pledged their allegiance to the organization by raping boys on the record, with their task being to drag out an impeachment designed to obstruct and delay any real efforts to remove the President, thus keeping Trump in power. The witness blocking was to cause an apparent uproar delaying things with legal actions until late Summer. Soon after, the President would resign, leaving any other candidate with not enough time or support to compete with an opportunistic Biden, who is as good as Trump or any other Illuminati friendly politician in the Presidency.
172 page PDF [last update: March|3|2O2O]:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W...
Previously reported:
\Wag The Dog: first was feigned impeachment hearings meant to obstruct, now an attack on Iranians in Iraq. Here is what they are trying to distract from & cover up to retain power. $100+ billion in bribes to the highest offices in this country. 815+ deaths from child rapes to prove loyalty!
See the latest PDF updates: FBI Director Wray, AG Barr, SoD Shanahan, & SoS Pompeo each raped boys and were paid billions in bribes for a Soros & Koch funded child rape org. So did Trump & his "impeachment" team Nadler,Schiff,Mueller.So did media moguls Redstone,Murdoch,Moonves. What are they trying to set up? Who can arrest them since they are all bribed and in on it ?
Their strategy to stay in every office and obstruct until forced to leave no matter what. Feigning impeachment: see page 13O. Hoiohiuhrfe, jknbjkevew, vrmnowenbgewrg. port.
\\if;Download the video/audio file, put on headphones and turn up the volume. You will hear these people committing these crimes. Audio was broadcast into my apartment by outdated surveillance equipment illegally embedded within my walls. This very same technology was being used to broadcast me to the internet for five years without my consent. I own this footage...
Until trump, the infection of fickle, cynical politics never made it very deep because the folks operating in that bureaucratic layer were career people with operational ethics (and frankly were quite boring-- by design), not nominated people. The sycophants are purging those people now. The rot is making its way deeper into the inner workings of the country like a cancer.
Now they're not afraid of lying because that's what their rulers want them to do. Do whatever it takes to make the boss look good or suffer the consequences. That's the kind of behavior you expect from North Korea. Not the USA.
Traditionally the press has been the checks-and-balances solution.
I wonder whether we will be better off now (with ubiquitous cheap communication) or worse (with big journalism disappearing).
I just heard Ajit Pai (sp?) talking on Freakonomics podcast, he was lying really effectively. Impressive interviewing nonetheless, probing but not badgering.
Fake numbers and political theater are not a substitute for substance, and since the stewards in government have officially gone mad (a front for an embezzlement scheme), we should just go ahead and fast-forward a best-case scenario for a poisoned well.....
In a whimsical kind of way, we just need the greybeards to agree that TCP/IP did not get it right (the 1st time) and go back to the drawing/drafting board to innovate a more robust offering of encapsulation.
Bullies winning all of the special Olympic trophies has never been particularly entertaining, but I guess their persistence is something to be admired. Maybe they are special?!?!?!
There are no accounting standards for it, it's never audited, it's just people throwing out a narrative.
This one demonstrates this point as clearly as ever.