Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Keep the Internet Open

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 415 posts

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#81

Post by Not31337 »

Charging per volume of traffic would eliminate the net neutrality issue.

If I use Netflix on Comcast I would pay Comcast for my use of their network. Comcast would pay Netflix's ISP for the use of that network (at negotiated rate lower than my rate because of volume). Netflix would pay their ISP For their usage as well.(also priced for volume)

The two end point rates would have to be set so carriers make a profit and the responsibility of traffic is shared between the sender and receiver. (people who get thing for free tend to treat it as worthless).

This model has to be worked out to completion to understand all the implications.

The key thing is if Comcast was getting reasonable revenue from moving Netflix traffic it would not need to throttle other people's traffic to bully consumers to buy on demand TV from Comcast.

As side effect this may reduce usage by people who download stuff just because they can because its free/already paid for. This is related to free things are treated badly concept I mentioned earlier.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#82

Post by throwaway399 »

saycheese wrote: post #28
sama wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If anyone does this in the bay area and it's public, they will likely be burnt at the stake.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#83

Post by Keverw »

rdl wrote: post #58

While I like the Internet being open, I don't like "net neutrality" extremism. 1) While I dislike monopoly carrier antics, I'm even more unhappy about the idea of government bureaucrats dictating network engineering standards to carriers and ISPs. If you build a network with caches/content servers close to users, and expensive backhaul back to your network core, you can offer essentially unlimited traffic to users hi…

Yeah, I do think more competition between providers would naturally solve a lot of these problems. There's to much politics involved, even for a company as big as Google. At&t for example suing in Louisville.

The FCC and states should do something to help foster more competition and lowing the barrier to entry.

http://www.recode.net/2016/2/26/11588286/google-fiber-swings...

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#84

Post by wfo »

Keverw wrote: post #39
tehwebguy wrote: post #10

Ajit Pai is public enemy number one.

I do agree net neutrality is a good thing, only major thing I disagree with gutting net neutrality as the internet is the future network for everything. But overall I support Ajit Pai because he wants to cut down on regulations it seems from reading some transcripts. For example there's people who want to regulate Netflix, Amazon Instant video, Playstation Vue, YouTube TV as if they are a cable system, with all the e…

Yeah, like those pesky regulations that stop your ISP from selling your entire internet history at will without telling you or your permission. Pai will finally get rid of it so ISPs can be free and the market can decide. By which I mean the ISPs can decide, since they own the market.

Public enemy number one is a pretty fair assessment as far as anyone in tech is concerned.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/ad-industry-lobb...

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#85

Post by vog »

gz5 wrote: post #56

The utility should be the fiber (or spectrum). Regulate that; leave the ISPs to then compete openly. Today's software can enable multiple ISPs to share the fiber/spectrum. I could then have 10 ISPs today and 15 ISPs tomorrow. I might use ISP #1 for certain content, and ISP #2 for certain services. ISPs essentially become a function of the services and content they provide, and how they provide it, in an ultra-competi…

Good point. I believe Sweden is quite close to this vision.

More generally, certain goods need to be owned by the community, such as infrastructure. Privately owned streets are a nightmare, and so are pipes and fibers. Almost by definition this must lead to malfunctioning markets. Only if a level playing field on this ground is guaranteed, a market on top if this can function efficiently.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#86

Post by koolba »

If the physical line itself was separated from the ISP providing you service on the line, this problem would solve itself through natural competition. We almost saw this happen with ADSL but it lost out to the fatter pipes of coax and fiber.

Most people have either one or zero options for coax (i.e. cable) or fiber. That leads to a monopoly where you either have to take whatever Comcast / Time Warner / Verizon offer or live with craptacular DSL. Get rid of that monopoly and have the maintenance of those pipes be run by the local municipality. Then you can have real competition.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#87

Post by bo1024 »

guelo wrote: post #77
confounded wrote: post #49

Because of the massive amount of consolidation over the last few years, the death of Net Neutrality would be the best competitive moat imaginable for Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. While all their CEOs will make faint noises in favor of Net Neutrality, SV outspends Wall Street 2:1 on lobbying[1], the goal of which is to cement monopoly status, not to make the world a better place. Most of it goes to Republicans. Thin…

I don't think that's right. It will be a major shift of power from Google/Facebook/Amazon to the ISPs. Comcast could charge Google or Facebook extortionate prices to keep their websites fast. Theoretically there would be nothing stopping Comcast from completely blocking a website. Cable vs TV channel negotiations periodically end up with blackouts for the channels.

Agreed. I don't think it would be good for consumers, but it wouldn't be very good for Google if every youtube video people watch buffers slowly and flickers, meanwhile $ISP has created a competing website that runs fine. Nor would it be good for Facebook if $ISP replaces all advertisements on their page with $ISP's own ads. (Hmm, I guess HTTPS should be able to prevent this?)

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#88

Post by andy_ppp »

pdonis wrote: post #76
andy_ppp wrote: post #69

Why would anyone buy internet access from people charging like this/breaking their services? Are ISPs monopolies in the US and if so wouldn't stopping these monopolies be the surest way, allowing the market to decide a free Internet is what gets you customers? All that this will do is move people towards obfuscation of their Internet access through technology. I say let them try to break the web; there will be techno…

> Are ISPs monopolies in the US In many parts of it, yes, they are, because of deals that ISPs have struck with local governments. > wouldn't stopping these monopolies be the surest way Yes, and every time it's been tried, the ISPs go to court and, since they have much deeper pockets, end up getting the attempts shot down.

Okay so maybe YC should be funding a few clever ISP startups in the US?

There really is decent competition for Internet in the UK, it's surprisingly successful at stopping this type of stupid stuff from happening.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#89

Post by seibelj »

RodericDay wrote: post #80
seibelj wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is exactly where I philosophically disagree with you. I would rather the Iraqi have access to Wikipedia than have no internet at all. It's saying that you, as a rich American, know what's best for poor foreigners. You would demand someone get everything, or they get nothing.

I'm not a rich american, you're a bit presumptive there. I'm from Peru. I came from a well-off peruvian background, and I've seen the families of my rich peruvian peers as well as foreigners exploit the hell out of poor people in that country, all while claiming that anyone who wants to enforce some minimum standards or think long-term, is "condescending", or "paternalistic". I've put forward the case of America bein…

Sorry for presuming you are a rich American instead of a "well-off" peruvian. You are the one comparing drug dealers to free Wikipedia, so I don't know where to begin the argument as you already went off the deep end!

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#90

Post by hammerandtongs »

Part of the problem is that "the internet" has not provided a technical solution yet to the claimed problem (the laziness and shiftiness of ISPs not upgrading simple crossconnects is bs though).

If someone wants to stream netflix, youtube or grab something from a torrent why not have a content agnostic(safe harbor) block cache distributed around the internet?

This is most concretely expressed by ipfs https://ipfs.io/ but it's an old idea -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_centric_networking

Bittorrent itself is a limited form of it. On some level AMP from google and CDNs are trying to make up for its lack.

As long as the ISP doesn't actively force this on their users but instead its something companys and people actually want I think its a net good to make this a thing.

We should mature and adopt IPFS AND fight the net neutrality battle.

Post reply on HN