Hacker News Reader

Comment by kirualex | Hacker News Reader

Yet another blow to Net-Neutrality...

I don't see a problem. You can switch ISP if your current one isn't net-neutral. Why should you force businesses to operate in certain way? They're not breaking any laws.

Clearly you aren't living in the United States. My choices are Comcast, Comcast, and Comcast.

I'm really starting to think mesh networks are going to be the only solution.

You forgot about Comcast. :)

Are there no smaller, 'independent' ISPs which aren't part of conglomerates that are unlikely to remain net-neutral?

Again, you clearly aren't from around here.

To be less facetious, I could also choose AT&T DSL, but they don't offer competitive bandwidth. And they aren't exactly a small independent ISP. There might be ISPs that offer "business class" service, but their prices probably start at least 3x what I currently pay. I'm not even sure they would offer service in an apartment complex either.

Not in most areas of the US.

Here's the thing about smaller, 'independent' ISPs: they're small. That means they don't have very large coverage, and the US is a very large country. So even though there are SOME smaller, independent ISPs which are likely to remain net-neutral, they can only service a very tiny portion of the population. That doesn't help everybody else.

I live in Santa Clara, in the South Bay. It's pretty close to the heart of Silicon Valley. My only option for an ISP is Comcast; my choices are literally, in the true definition of literally, use Comcast or don't get internet. And that's not really a choice, is it?

In the vast, vaaaast majority of cases, "no".

Especially in apartment complexes, you'll have a single carrier lock down entire areas in a no-compete way.

Same here. There is literally no other option for broadband. Not even DSL. My other option is satellite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_market

Why should you force business to operate in a certain way? Because, weirdly enough, the profit motive isn't always sufficient to make sure that business operate for the benefit of consumers, or more broadly, society.

Antitrust laws, environmental laws etc. all force businesses to "operate in a certain way". You can argue for more or less regulation, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone to argue for no regulation.

Also, the issue is many people don't have a choice between ISPs, or if they do, it's between two major ISPs. If a Time Warner / Comcast juggernaut implements a fast lane, do you think that Verizon or whoever else won't?

It also a slippery slope. If ISP A is making $$$ from not treating everyon the same, ISP B-Z will follow eventually....

In many markets you cannot in fact switch.

'They're not breaking any laws' is an empty argument when the current debate is about 'what laws should we write to curb behavior that is bad for society'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com