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

91–100 of 415 posts

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#91

Post by Karunamon »

no_protocol wrote: post #68

> There's an argument that Internet Service Providers should be able to charge a metered rate based on usage. I'm not sure whether I agree with this, but in principle it seems ok. That's how we pay for public utilities. I can monitor and control the power usage of my electrical appliances. I can control outgoing network requests from my networked devices. I cannot control what is sent to my network from the outside.…

Telecom companies, in general, have no scruples about charging you for what other people send you unsolicited. Up until they got the memo that SMS was on its way out, they used to charge downright extortionate rates for text messages. Same for minutes.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#92

Post by saycheese »

throwaway399 wrote: post #82
saycheese wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mean like Elon, Thiel, etc.? If so seems to me as if they're all doing just fine. [1]

Beyond that, point of engaging Trump would be on a topic I would assume everyone agrees is important - and if you think hidding and hoping things will magically get better, well, good luck!

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-meeting-photo-jeff-bezo...

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#93

Post by seibelj »

throwaway399 wrote: post #73
seibelj wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are a poor American on a Lifeline phone (free phone provided by the government) with a very limited data plan, no one is (at this time) willing to subsidize unlimited services for this user. But maybe some companies, for their services, are willing to subsidize them. And in my opinion, it's better for the poor person to have access to some services than no services.

I think it's worse. It might provide some low quality entertainment as a TV replacement, which just takes up people's time. It might be in that person's interest at the time but not in the interest of society in general.

I don't like to tell others what is the best use of their time, or what "society" wants them to be doing. People are free to choose what to do with their own time.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#94

Post by jodrellblank »

bo1024 wrote: post #87
guelo wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

meanwhile $ISP has created a competing website that runs fine.

It wouldn't be good for Google, but this seems as likely as an ISP beating SpaceX to the moon. It's hard enough to get an ISP to provide internet service most of the time.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#96

Post by RodericDay »

seibelj wrote: post #89
RodericDay wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

It's not free Wikipedia that's the problem, it's free Facebook that's the problem.

Stop being disingenuous, you know full-well that's what Zuckerberg was aiming for with `internet.org`.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#97

Post by seibelj »

grthrowaway wrote: post #74
seibelj wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are a poor American on a Lifeline phone (free phone provided by the government) with a very limited data plan, no one is (at this time) willing to subsidize unlimited services for this user. But maybe some companies, for their services, are willing to subsidize them. And in my opinion, it's better for the poor person to have access to some services than no services.

There is no limit on my truconnect phone for calls texts or data. There are multiple companies set up outside the general relief office and I am eligible for a phone from each one; so, even if there wasn't a generous data plan, a combination of phones would solve that. As does using free wifi which is available at all libraries and police stations where I live. Posting garbage about poor people's situations that is u…

I have never heard of a government provided phone with unlimited data plan. I don't think the government should be providing a "combination of phones" for free to each poor person. I am happy you can use free WiFi. I think that if you want to watch YouTube and google is willing to pay for your data, that's OK and no one will be hurt.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#98

Post by ABCLAW »

seibelj wrote: post #72
RodericDay wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I resent the accusation. It's like saying the poor Iraqi is better off getting free coca-cola, and getting locked into coca-cola for the rest of his life, than actually getting water (and, if they desire, the possibility of coca-cola). A country growing its infrastructure, which is apparently not yet essential, under the perverse influence of a non-neutral playing field, is a country that will have immense trouble sh…

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.

Lets be honest here. Wikipedia isn't going to be funding the expansion of internet networks on the basis that it can fund priority zero rating. It will be American or Chinese consumer facing companies with massive bankrolls and business models built on addictive consumer engagement. Think Amazon fighting Aliexpress for priority access to the Iraq marketplace on the basis of network access, rather than efficiency in product logistics.

The idea that NN vs. non-NN network proliferation is an intrinsically paternalistic battle is flipped on its head when cast in real terms.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#100

Post by dsr_ »

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.

Google and Facebook now run networks larger than most major ISPs -- among the largest on the planet.

Demand for Youtube and FB are so high and ubiquitous that pretty much any ISP will immediately cave in.

Comcast is the most disliked company in the USA. Guess what happens when G runs a banner under each search or Youtube video mentioning that performance is bad because Comcast is blocking things, here's Brian Roberts's phone number?

Post reply on HN