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

111–120 of 415 posts

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#111

Post by nol13 »

jodrellblank wrote: post #94
bo1024 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Virgin Galactic ain't out yet.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#112

Post by acalderaro »

1_2__3 wrote: post #101
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…

Ah, a member of the mythical "coastal liberal ideological vacuum," where anyone who brings up the slightest anti-government sentiment gets bombarded with ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies, instead of facts and reason. Is that because the coastal liberal is uneducated, or simply immature?

If we generously assume the latter, it's important for you to know that the sort of thinking that let Trump win the white house is echoed in your entire comment. Congratulations!

I've got to run, but in the meantime, perhaps you can educate yourself on some of the potential shortcomings associated with regulating the internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Reduction_in_in...

Edit: Oh look! Downvotes for observations. What an amazing display of irony.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#113

Post by josh2600 »

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…

This is foolish. Google doesn't own the last mile into your house. They are beholden to ATT + Verizon, and, to a lesser extent, Comcast.

Due to the regulatory moat that the Carriers have built up over the years (including spectrum rights) it's at least a 10 year battle to loosen their stranglehold at all, and that becomes a fascinating war if indeed content can be prioritized. Such a battle would be not unlike battles of the past, but at a larger scale.

Do you remember what it was like to load apps onto phones before the iPhone broke the carrier app lock?

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#114

Post by omginternets »

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.

It's revealing how you suddenly change the example from "Facebook" to "Wikipedia".

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#115

Post by NotreDev »

throwaway399 wrote: post #61
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…

Depends on the company. Sometimes most of it goes to democrats: Google for ex - https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00428623 Microsoft also almost 2x to dems - https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000115&l...

Appropriate that I'm responding to "throwaway399": your perspective that monopoly support is partisan lacks an appropriate level of nuance.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#116

Post by cmurf »

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…

Just like with health care insurance, ISPs are an anti-competitive market. Both ISPs in my area have hard caps, crap service, and are widely disliked. Even within the city, there's a surprising lack of overlap where entire neighborhoods are only serviced by one of those companies.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#117

Post by jack9 »

Not31337 wrote: post #81

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…

Usage monitoring (charging) sits squarely next to traffic shaping and filtering. Just no.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#118

Post by ComradeTaco »

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…

It's funny because Google has been trying to break free of ISPs with Google Fiber. Unfortunately huge capital costs and regulatory capture by ISPs effectively torpedoed expansion plans. Now the head of the FCC, a former General Consul for Verizon, is adamentaly opposed to net neutrality.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#120

Post by tetrep »

acdha wrote: post #106
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 conside…

> Similarly, zero-rating isn't usually considered a network neutrality problem as long as the option is open to everyone at the same pricing.

That's still extremely anti-competitive. Incumbents are in an much better position to pay large sums of money to have relatively minor services stream for free. People will flock to those services and a small competitor will have no viable option of paying for the fees and remaining profitable.

You might counter that with "get funding!" But I think the internet is amazing because of it's low barrier to entry. Blocking that might not prevent "disruption" from startups, but it sure as hell will prevent many people from casually trying things.

Post reply on HN