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

101–110 of 415 posts

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#101

Post by 1_2__3 »

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…

> the idea of government bureaucrats dictating network engineering standards to carriers and ISPs

I have to admit I read that and I completely discount the rest of your comment. Nobody who actually believes in even the concept of sensible government regulation uses phrasing like this. I'm surprised you didn't call out "three letter agencies" too.

And besides that I believe you're just trying to fool people too stupid to know what NN is when you say net neutrality "dictates network engineering standards". I don't think your comment is intellectually honest at all.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#102

Post by no_wizard »

seibelj wrote: post #60
no_wizard wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're also talking about Net Neutrality in the United States, largely, and I would reckon almost explicitly. What does that have to do with Iraq and its internet access?? Not that it isn't important. It just has nothing to do with internet access in the United States. you're not exactly elaborating on how that example applies. I see no evidence here, yet you claim Net neutrality 'absolutists' need to tone down their…

OK, so philosophically speaking, you only care about net neutrality in America? I thought that NN was a universal philosophy about the freedom of the internet. If you do believe that Iraqis should be able to have zero rated Wikipedia, because they are poor, shouldn't poor Americans (of which their are millions living in abject poverty) be able to get zero rated services as well?

I do care personally. I'm just saying net neutrality policies implemented in the United States* effecting only companies that operate their networks in the US is not a great place to discuss whether or not an Iraqi citizen or the country if Iraq should implement net neutrality regulations

However the FCC of which the article speaks (which sets the tone of the conversation that is about what article I would naturally think) is based and regulating companies and is regulating institutions within ....you guessed it! The United States.

I don't believe Iraqis should have zero rated internet access. I also believe you aren't quoting me saying as such. Again I ask: how is what Iraqs telecom regulations are have an impact on the FCC?

And to be clear I believe strongly in net neutrality in the USA and abroad. It just holds no direct bearing on FCC policy.

I think zero rating in essence limits access, allows ISPs to pick winners and losers on the internet, and could threaten the next great platform for free speech.

I'm still awaiting a real factual rebuttal to net neutrality. I'd love to hash these ideas out. How does zero rating actually benefit anyone? How does the current changes and near term purposed structure of telecom regulations benefit the average consumer? How would you seek to increase competition specifically.

Not hide vagaries of "reduce regulation". What regulations exactly?

In this same thread I posted at length what I believe to be strong facts in favor of net neutrality. I can re post them here if you like.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#103

Post by Keverw »

wfo wrote: post #84
Keverw wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Selling your entire internet history sounds very wrong to me.

Unless it's anonymized for like statistical purposes, sorta like saying Google.com is the #1 website like Alexa does.

I just wish instead of having 100's of pages of regulations scattered throughout a bunch of different acts where it's impossible for one person to know. Even if you are trying to not break the law, you probably will by accident. I know I heard a statistic the average American commits 3 felonies a day without knowing.

I feel like we should have more common sense, and have more straight to the point shorter regulations. It is impossible for someone in one life time to even read all the laws and regulations that exists.

It just seems like the laws, and even agreements for services are long and bloated. If people actually read their subscriber agreements they sign when getting cable installed, it seems like the cable guy would be waiting on you for quite a bit. I doubt anyone even reads the terms of service for Facebook.

But we even have PSA's to tell people to not text and drive, so maybe the world isn't smart enough to go by common sense.

Then not all regulations are even online. Maybe if everything was in markdown, categorized and formatted to be more digestible things would be better. I know we need some regulations, but it seems we have way too many and poor formatting. It just seems like insanity to me.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#104

Post by confounded »

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.

> Comcast could charge Google or Facebook extortionate prices

They can pay. Start-ups, hobbyists, and non-profits can't.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#105

Post by mozumder »

sama wrote: post #19
brothercolor wrote: post #14

The 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.

If you want to keep the Internet open, you're going to have to push for ISPs as a public utility, like the roads are. A big government bureaucracy is better to handle this service, instead of profit-driven private companies, since government is far more efficient than private companies.

There is no way private companies are going to be able to keep the internet open for long. What's their incentive to keep it open? Assume they are against you, and deal with it from there.

And we should be using 40Gbps internet right now, enabling live low-latency video, but we can't because there's no competitive reason for local ISPs to upgrade.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#106

Post by acdha »

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…

Your first point isn't traditionally included in net neutrality – that belief, and everything about bureaucrats dictating standards was created out of whole cloth by the ISP lobbying effort.

The core idea is only fairness: e.g. Comcast can't throttle or charge for connectivity based on your perceived ability to pay and their in-house service shouldn't get separate pricing.

Similarly, zero-rating isn't usually considered a network neutrality problem as long as the option is open to everyone at the same pricing. It becomes anticompetitive if e.g. you're quoted twice what Comcast charges the company they have an interest in.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#107

Post by Derrick_Blake »

simplehuman wrote: post #62
ryandrake wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's needed for "another Aaron"? Courage. The cynic in me answers "Someone who doesn't mind being becoming a target?" I notice nobody is jumping up and down volunteering to be "another Assange" or "another Snowden". Different topics but similar level of fortitude needed.

And best of luck finding these in immigrant rich silicon valley who are already petrified of losing their visa with the new government change.

That's a whole nother issue and equally messed up.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#108

Post by nemothekid »

dsr_ wrote: post #100
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.

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…

>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?

Nothing because consumers typically have a choice of 1 or maybe 2 ISPs? You said it yourself, Comcast is already the most disliked company in the US - they'd have nothing to lose by blocking YouTube - or worse, making it so slow that Google begins to lose viewership.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#109

Post by simplehuman »

Derrick_Blake wrote: post #107
simplehuman wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And best of luck finding these in immigrant rich silicon valley who are already petrified of losing their visa with the new government change.

That's a whole nother issue and equally messed up.

Sorry, to put that comment in context.. There was an article a couple of days back of how immigrants are creating massive value by starting startups in the valley. Well, these guys have the most incentive to stand up for an open internet but they won't/can't.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#110

Post by simplehuman »

xatan_dank wrote: post #71
simplehuman wrote: post #36

I don't think activism is the answer to these problems. Instead, we need to show consumer benefits of an open internet. Right now, people are totally loving the mono-culture and the internet silos that the mega corps are building (facebook, whatsapp, gmail, google, chrome, apple app store, github to name a few). It's going to hard to convince them unless you can show them tangible benefits. I think the big companies…

I don't know how many people are totally loving the mono-culture and many of the "free" social networks are not profitable at all. Very few of them are actually succeeding. Also, you say activism is not the answer, and then say that the companies have succeeded in part because they have prevented activism from happening by 'distracting' people. I don't think any of this is true and that the argument you make here is…

> I don't know how many people are totally loving the mono-culture

Huh? Just see all the gmail ids. Just ask any company as to how many email ids are gmail and prepared to be stunned. Same goes for GitHub, medium. Even so called "decentralized" projects are happily hosting code on github and blogging on medium. (I am not judging the users here by any means. I am just saying they are "happy").

> Also, you say activism is not the answer, and then say that the companies have succeeded in part because they have prevented activism from happening by 'distracting' people.

Keeping products free is the distraction. People give away all sorts of things and start rationalizing in curious ways to get freebies.

Post reply on HN