<story><title>FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/21/the-fcc-has-unveiled-its-plan-to-rollback-its-net-neutrality-rules/?utm_term=.dd07b903b6a7</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>niftich</author><text>Repealing net neutrality would only make sense if the layer underneath (the PHY consisting of fiber&amp;#x2F;copper&amp;#x2F;coax&amp;#x2F;wireless&amp;#x2F;whatever infrastucture including last-mile connections between every node) were subject to net neutrality instead [1], such that &amp;quot;anyone&amp;quot; could start an ISP that offers differentiated services on top of the same infra. Of course, today the last-mile infra and the ISP on top are tightly coupled, and many states have enacted laws and regulations that restrict or forbid municipalities&amp;#x27; efforts to build out a neutral infra [2].&lt;p&gt;I find it absurd that some politicians support both the repeal of net neutrality and the restricting of willing communities to build out their own infra at the same time. I could intellectually entertain either option but never both simultaneously. For a political cohort whose brand has long included local self-determination and rural self-reliance, it&amp;#x27;s bizarre to me to see them take positions that don&amp;#x27;t even appear to be logically consistent. It&amp;#x27;s difficult to accept that they truly have the best interest of their constituents in mind.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;muninetworks.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;competition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;muninetworks.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;competition&lt;/a&gt; [2]. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;muninetworks.org&amp;#x2F;communitymap&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;muninetworks.org&amp;#x2F;communitymap&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>toomanybeersies</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s what we ended up with in New Zealand, the underlying infrastructure is owned by companies that lease it to the ISPs, so anyone with enough cash can rent some cabinet space and start an ISP.&lt;p&gt;Before the unbundling, Telecom NZ basically had a monopoly on ADSL connections, connections cost a lot of money and had comically small caps (like 10 GB, which even in 2006 was not a lot). Now, in straight dollar terms, plans are cheaper, and uncapped plans are standard.</text></comment>
<story><title>FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/21/the-fcc-has-unveiled-its-plan-to-rollback-its-net-neutrality-rules/?utm_term=.dd07b903b6a7</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>niftich</author><text>Repealing net neutrality would only make sense if the layer underneath (the PHY consisting of fiber&amp;#x2F;copper&amp;#x2F;coax&amp;#x2F;wireless&amp;#x2F;whatever infrastucture including last-mile connections between every node) were subject to net neutrality instead [1], such that &amp;quot;anyone&amp;quot; could start an ISP that offers differentiated services on top of the same infra. Of course, today the last-mile infra and the ISP on top are tightly coupled, and many states have enacted laws and regulations that restrict or forbid municipalities&amp;#x27; efforts to build out a neutral infra [2].&lt;p&gt;I find it absurd that some politicians support both the repeal of net neutrality and the restricting of willing communities to build out their own infra at the same time. I could intellectually entertain either option but never both simultaneously. For a political cohort whose brand has long included local self-determination and rural self-reliance, it&amp;#x27;s bizarre to me to see them take positions that don&amp;#x27;t even appear to be logically consistent. It&amp;#x27;s difficult to accept that they truly have the best interest of their constituents in mind.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;muninetworks.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;competition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;muninetworks.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;competition&lt;/a&gt; [2]. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;muninetworks.org&amp;#x2F;communitymap&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;muninetworks.org&amp;#x2F;communitymap&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>awj</author><text>&amp;gt; It&amp;#x27;s difficult to accept that they truly have the best interest of their constituents in mind.&lt;p&gt;Then ... don&amp;#x27;t. If someone&amp;#x27;s actions contradict their words, don&amp;#x27;t believe their words.</text></comment>