We detached this flagged subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13993120. This account has been posting a lot of unsubstantive comments, so please stop and re-read the guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I really don't think you can apply any sort of free market principles to ISPs.

They're almost all regional monopolies or duopolies -- with franchise agreements and, in many cases, state regulations/laws that make it hard for anyone else (including municipalities) to enter that market.

Unless you're someone big like Google or Verizon then you're not going to be able to enter the last mile ISP market and I don't see much incentive for companies even attempting to do that outside of highly populated urban areas.

>I really don't think you can apply any sort of free market principles to ISPs.

Shouldn't we then work towards that. Instead of applying more regulations.

Why prefer that to having a good set of regulations?

Well, one good argument would be that there's a party which'll tear down any reasonable set of regulations every eight years. You could argue that the solution is to convince people that electing this party is a terrible idea, but... that doesn't look to be happening any time soon.

Fix the market first, then deregulate.

> Discrimating between companies leads to communism.

Pardon me for being blunt, but that is complete nonsense. If that was the case, the US would have become a communist state a long time ago.

> Good opportunity for isps to gain market share by offering privacy protection.

By that reasoning, one might allow car manufactures to leave out seat belts, so they could "gain market share" by offering to install seat belts as an expensive upgrade.

You mean people will get the opportunity to pay their ISP not to sell them out? Sounds pretty consumer friendly to me.

Any way we see this new development, this weakening of privacy is a big win for telecoms and its sustained and vast efforts at lobbying Congress. Bluntly, Congress sold out the American people...anywhere else (I believe) and the ability for entire industries to buy votes would be called corruption, especially when elected representatives remove consumer protections (whoever gave them that mandate?!) in favour of (a paying) industry.

[0]- The 265 members of Congress who sold you out to ISPs, and how much it cost to buy them (http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-...)

You know, it is possible that these members didn't vote because of some quid pro quo relationship but because of ideological beliefs that aligned with voting this way. Maximizing liberty and 'leveling the playing field' (WRT FANG) seem like beliefs one could reasonably hold. The end doesn't justify the means to all people, and reaching decisions one doesn't like is sometimes the outcome of remaining true to one's principles.

No ISPs will get opportunity to differentiate themselves.

I don't know where you live, but where I live there is no choice for which ISP you use. This is true for many, if not the majority of people in the US. I am unable to use the ISP I want to use because it is blocked in my building by a building-exclusive contract with Comcast. So no ISPs have any chance for an opportunity.

Can you lobby your building administration with the help of your fellow residents? I would get a hold of the exclusivity agreement it and comb over it to look for loopholes, and also determine when it expires.

I've tried. They just stonewall me by claiming that the building is only wired for Comcast and refuse to communicate with me further on the subject.

edit: It's an apartment building not a condo. In my previous condo building it would have been easier to discuss this issue.

Those are called VPNs.