I'm afraid we can't do the SOPA/PIPA protests again :(
Why not? Always keep up the fight.
Keep the Internet Open
21–30 of 415 posts
Re: Keep the Internet Open
#22> You wouldn't accept your electric company charging you different rates for each of your appliances. I can get cheaper electricity for my water heater if I choose to attach it to a source that can be interrupted at times of peak load. I'm not quite sure this line of reasoning will stand. Edit: It appears the linked article has been updated since I originally posted this. The new text is: > You wouldn't accept your e…
Your comparison is invalid. Consumers generally tolerate that network management for some things is ok, for example, constraining the transfer speed of users at peak times. This is a different scenario - the comparable scenario would be that your electricity company charges you a variable rate depending on which manufacturers appliances you buy, for example, if you buy and use only samsung appliances, you get a cheap…
> the comparable scenario would be that your electricity company charges you a variable rate depending on which manufacturers appliances you buy
The scenario you introduce is different from the specific line I was responding to. My intention was to show that some more consideration and rework of the idea could bring more clarity. You have helped refine Sam's point and now I understand it better, but as I read it, it seemed like something that should be addressed.
> Consumers generally tolerate that network management for some things is ok, for example, constraining the transfer speed of users at peak times.
I could have a switch to change my water heater to the non-interruptible service if I needed to use it during a time of peak demand. How does "pay more for priority" fit into the net neutrality picture? Is it okay as long as the user is the one choosing which of their traffic is in the fast or slow lane?
Re: Keep the Internet Open
#23Interesting reviewing the list of organizations that signed the letter sent to the FCC by the ACLU & EFF on keeping the internet open: http://www.commoncause.org/policy-and-litigation/letters-to-... Really makes you wonder what's going on, since Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. are nowhere to be found on the list.
I think there was deliberate selection of the type of organizations and the interests they represent for this letter; I don't think it's an accident that it doesn't include tech firms and content hosts, but political advocacy groups and content creators.
Re: Keep the Internet Open
#24Sam Altman is the Ycombinator version of Steven Anthony Ballmer you can see failure on the horizon. Its just a matter of time.
What do you mean by this? Otherwise, this should be flagged.
Re: Keep the Internet Open
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
The enemies of the open internet only have to win once, but to fend them off we have to win every single time. SOPA/PIPA protests had a lot of momentum, and they "won", but within weeks the same intrusive, anti-consumer practices were injected into some other bill that just got pushed through anyways. I just don't see how we can win. Not without some seriously strong top-down consumer protection laws. Net neutrality…
There is no "winning" the war as long as there is disagreement - of which there always will be. That's why the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. To overturn this law, or to make consumer protection laws force neutrality you only have to win "once" where the other side has to keep defending. The net result is that both sides are always constantly fighting for what they want and one side wins sometimes, and the ot…
When's the last time consumer protection on the internet "won" though?
My browsing history is about to go up for sale. My emails are fair game for the US government with no warrant. My ISP is free to double-charge for peering, driving my Netflix subscription costs up. My mobile operator is streaming certain services without it counting against my data, while services I want to use still do. I have to pay ridiculous amounts of money to my ISP for a decent connection, despite the government giving telecoms huge subsidies (our own tax dollars) in exchange for building nationwide fiber, most of which went straight to the company's own coffers with no repercussions.[1]
If there was at least some back-and-forth, I would see your point, but as it stands I only see one failure after another.
Re: Keep the Internet Open
#26I think the tipping point last time (SOPA/PIPA protests) was when Reddit, Wikipedia, Google, etc. went dark. It's sad we don't have Aaron Swartz to help this time around. It's good to see Sam offering help, but who is actually going to step up?
Re: Keep the Internet Open
#27I don't understand why a basic "pay for what you use" principle is so evil while Facebook is a much bigger threat (worse than AOL in its day).
Does 'sama have a Facebook account?
Re: Keep the Internet Open
#28The internet is what makes Silicon Valley go round. Everyone, including Sam Altman, needs to be an activist. Asking for someone else to take point on something so fundamental is like asking Natives to take point on water prot-- wait.
I am happy to help, and honestly if I had more time right now I'd take this on directly--right now is an unusually busy time for me. I agree with you it's critical to Silicon Valley.
Given Elon & Thiel are both in contact with Trump, if you haven't already done so, it would be worth mentioning it directly to both that this is important to you.
For that matter, maybe this is a chance to you yourself reach out to Trump on an issue and invite him to meet at the White House or come to the Bay Area to meet the next batch of YC startups.
Re: Keep the Internet Open
#29The tech community rallied pretty hard in favor of net neutrality last go-round, they were just lucky that Wheeler (head of the FCC) agreed with them.
I think there isn't anything specific to fight against now as there was with SOPA. Once a specific legislation/regulation appears, I think the tech world will strongly oppose again. I also suspect the large tech companies are trying to use their lobbying power behind the scenes preemptively again.
Re: Keep the Internet Open
#30> You wouldn't accept your electric company charging you different rates for each of your appliances. I can get cheaper electricity for my water heater if I choose to attach it to a source that can be interrupted at times of peak load. I'm not quite sure this line of reasoning will stand. Edit: It appears the linked article has been updated since I originally posted this. The new text is: > You wouldn't accept your e…
Your comparison is invalid. Consumers generally tolerate that network management for some things is ok, for example, constraining the transfer speed of users at peak times. This is a different scenario - the comparable scenario would be that your electricity company charges you a variable rate depending on which manufacturers appliances you buy, for example, if you buy and use only samsung appliances, you get a cheap…
slightly modified:
The comparable scenario would be that your electricity company not only provides electricity, but also owns an appliance manufacturing chain. The electricity company charges you a different rate depending on which manufacturer's appliances you buy. Additionally, if you buy their appliances, then you get free electricity for those appliances.
The above scenario doesn't wrap in that it's not just a lower payment rate but, due to artificial caps on monthly usage, can lead to a situation where the only option becomes "use the ISPs preferred music/video/etc provider, or don't use that type of service at all".
edit:
P = (A * R) + (B * R') + C
Where:
P is the final bill a user pays (or data charged towards a cap)
A is the amount of services that are provided by the ISP/Provider/Pipe
R is the rate that is charged for the provider's own services
B is the amount of services that are provided by a third party
R' is the rate that is charged for the those third party services
C is a base payment amount (or zero in the case of considering P a data cap)
Assuming that equation, then the lower R is, the higher R' is, and lower P is, the more likely a consumer is going to choose ISP services.
So, if R is 0, then the ISP can slowly lower P (when considering it as a data cap) to be basically zero. Thus pushing out an ISP competitor services (or making new services not even viable), as the user is highly incentivized to use ISP services. The user is also incentivized to use ISP services, even if they are worse, otherwise be penalized with data cap usage or higher rates.
When R == R', then the ISP is a "dumb pipe", and competes to provides those services, and has no other incentive to do anything other than provide transit.