Okay. Net neutrality died and ISPs didn’t immediately turn the internet in to subscriptions to different cloud providers.
The fact is that they CAN, and to be so deliriously ignorant as to believe that “it didn’t happen yet, so it will never happen” is just… what is happening here?
Is this thread just ChatGPT bots?
Regardless of if Microsoft, google, Amazon and ISPs have not yet managed to cooperate in to cable style subscriptions to what parts of the internet you get, we are WAY better off enshrining to law that they cannot do it.
> Okay. Net neutrality died and ISPs didn’t immediately turn the internet in to subscriptions to different cloud providers.
It didn't die, it temporarily stopped being the federal rule with the clear likelihood that it would be restored with the next Democratic administration and with a number of states adopting NN regulations.
>The fact is that they CAN, and to be so deliriously ignorant as to believe that “it didn’t happen yet, so it will never happen” is just… what is happening here?
What is happening here is see you are disingenuously misrepresenting the opinion of those who disagree with you, and then dehumanizing them by comparing them to robots. Both of these are gross and should stop.
The actual argument is something like this:
1. ISPs are profit seeking monopolists who will do anything to increase their profits (axiomatic, at least on HN)
2. ISPs have had the opportunity to "turn the Internet into subscriptions for different cloud providers" in the United States for not just the last six years, but rather throughout most of the life of the Internet.
3. Despite ample opportunity (especially for mobile carriers who were exempted from most of the requirements), they have never taken the steps to do so.
4. Therefore, it is likely they have decided that this kind of extreme siloing is not in the best interests of their profits.
It's not too hard to imagine why point four would be true;
- Most users are loyal to products, not companies. Most use products that are owned by or hosted on entities that compete with each other. This would severely complicate any kind of negotiation between the ISP and provider of the services.
- The result would be a product that is confusing from a customer standpoint. Nobody knows whether the product they interact with is hosted on Azure or GCP or AWS.
- Managing it sounds like a logistical nightmare (so, expensive).
- It opens a new venue for competition (which contradicts point 1) that a competitor automatically wins by virtue of simply doing nothing.
- It's almost certainly sure to result in expensive legal involvement from interests with the money to make the process painful.
- Even if every prior issue did not exist, this concept is legislatively contentious. As in, the rules are likely to change in four years. The rules also are different state by state.
Putting myself in the shoes of the CEO of the most greedy ISP imaginable, I don't see how this siloing idea is going to make my company enough money to make all of that worth it. It seems like a great way to fail to show quarterly growth, which is the last thing I want in my position
> ISPs have had the opportunity to "turn the Internet into subscriptions for different cloud providers" in the United States for not just the last six years, but rather throughout most of the life of the Internet.
The FCC was acting under net neutrality principles in broadband actions starting in 2004, when its initial non-regulatory enforcement approach became legally problematic, it immediately turned to regulation around the principles (the most recent to be repealed was the last if series of regulatory packages, with lawsuits over the orevious ones each shaping the next one.) And by the time the last repeal was finalized state level NN regulations were already coming into play, as well as the clear likelihood that federal rules would be restored with the next Democratic-majority FCC.
Aside from maybe the period between the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the FCC articulation of net neutrality principles as a guiding rule for case-by-case action in 2004, I’m not sure what time you are talking about, there hasn’t been any period where there was a clear, stable situation where it amde any sense to make long-term decisions to structure business in a way that had a major conflict with neutrality.
This is largely correct, though I would add that prior to 2004 nearly all broadband was delivered over telephone wire. That made it Title II.
The first real net neutrality enforcement action was when FCC chairman Michael Powell under George w bush stopped Madison River from blocking a VoIP provider. Powell used Title II.
It took about a month from complaints to action because the FCC had clear authority.
That's why an agency needs clear authority.
If the FTC would have had to act, it would have taken 2 years and the FTC would have had to approve him that that provider had some sort of monopoly power.
Okay. Net neutrality died and ISPs didn’t immediately turn the internet in to subscriptions to different cloud providers.
The fact is that they CAN, and to be so deliriously ignorant as to believe that “it didn’t happen yet, so it will never happen” is just… what is happening here?
Is this thread just ChatGPT bots?
Regardless of if Microsoft, google, Amazon and ISPs have not yet managed to cooperate in to cable style subscriptions to what parts of the internet you get, we are WAY better off enshrining to law that they cannot do it.