Keep the Internet Open • Hacker News Board

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#161

Post by TOMDM » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 9:09 PM UTC

blhack wrote: post #130

This is a difficult question. Emotionally, I am a net neutrality absolutist, but I think I can talk myself out of it, which to me means that the conversation is complex. Should the power company be able to offer you a discounted rate if you host equipment that offsets their cost (for instance: a powerwall)[1]? I think that the answer to that question is yes. Well okay, then should your ISP be able to offer you a disc…

In a way, I'd say what your describing as far as power utilities is already in effect. There are a good number of people that charge their batteries off peak when the power is cheaper such that they can either use it later on peak when they would have to pay more, or even sell that power back to the grid when it's in more demand.

I think the issue here is that power is binary as far as the argument here is concerned, you have it or you don't, but influencing consumer patterns on data usage has the potential to seriously influence how they use the internet in a way that paying differing amounts for power doesn't. Competition is one of the most powerful driving forces of the internet today. The idea a lone programmer can offer a service that compares to multinational companies (in some areas, obviously not others) is phenomenal. But say consumers or that developer suddenly have to pay a large ongoing entry cost due to the fact that the product that they have made and are competing with is high bandwidth. Innovation dies overnight without net neutrality.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#162

Post by wonder_er » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 9:09 PM UTC

Arizhel wrote: post #152

rsync wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What do you mean by extremism? I view net neutrality as the requirement to treat all bits equally regardless of source, which is kind of a binary one." It should be possible for me to build some kind of public network, somewhere, for some purpose ... and dictate bits/traffic any way I see fit. Now maybe I can't do that with CATV because common carrier. And maybe I can't do that with public spectrum because public re…

There shouldn't, unless you're wiling to be responsible for all the bits that pass through your network. So if one of your subscribers transfers some CP on your network, you need to automatically to go prison for life for that. Is that OK with you? Sounds good to me.

My default heuristic is "anytime someone uses "think of the children" as an argument for protection, they have chosen one of the slipperiest of slopes to stand upon."

I doubt I'm the only one.

I recommend picking a better argument than CP to defend net neutrality.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#163

Post by throwaway399 » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 9:09 PM UTC

confounded wrote: post #143

throwaway399 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Your links directly contradict you, and support my original point. Note that I'm talking about money from companies (most to Republicans) not the individuals that work for them (most to Democrats).

I disagree with the company/individual distinction premise but even if you ignore individual contributions it's fairly even. Doesn't seem like a distinctly partisan issue.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#164

Post by nnutter » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 9:11 PM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #153

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…

"Things have changed fast; Google hardly even had lobbyists back during the SOPA blackout. " Errr, the DC office had 100+ people at that point, so .... (IE i'm not sure why you think that, and given it's completely wrong, i'm going to go with 'you just have no idea what you are talking about')

It was the rhetoric at the time and it might even be somewhat true, https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00002200...

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#165

Post by adewhurst2 » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 9:11 PM UTC

you are a good hacker since you are good i'm going to call you "CODER 52" good job.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#166

Post by xatan_dank » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 9:11 PM UTC

simplehuman wrote: post #110

xatan_dank wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Huh? Just see all the gmail ids.

That doesn't mean people are happy with the situation nor the product. In many situations, as I already mentioned, it doesn't even mean the product is successful. I'm well aware of all these near-monopolies and how many users they have- Gmail's monopoly over email, Google's monopoly over search, YouTube's monopoly over video, etc. Plenty of users are extremely dissatisfied with these services. Furthermore, your point doesn't address the "mono-culture", which is a separate issue from some specific corporations maintaining very high userbases.

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

This doesn't respond to what I said at all. I'm saying there is no evidence that software provided without a direct cost inevitably has an impact in deterring activism.

I worry that you don't understand what "free software" is. Facebook is free as in free beer, not as in freedom. There is a huge difference. You should read up on the definitions of free and proprietary software.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#167

Post by bifrost » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 9:11 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #133

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…

> "net neutrality" extremism So the NN side are the extremists. Not the side that wants to radically change the way the internet has worked for 40 years. Not the side that wants to upend the most innovative segment of the economy in favor of dinausour monoplies, radically reshaping the foundations of billions of dollars in investment and billions more in created wealth. Those guys are "conservative" right?

I think you misunderstand - NN is new, the internet worked fine on its own prior to it. NN is not a colloquial "neutrality" agreement, its a "lets force carriers to do things because we don't understand how it works".

I've worked on the carrier side, on the last mile side and on the consumer side and I'm not a fan of most of the proposed legislation. We need to prevent anticompetitive practices, but thats about it.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#168

Post by wonder_er » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 9:11 PM UTC

acalderaro wrote: post #112

1_2__3 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ho…

I'm with you. I still feel a bit surprised at the cognitive dissonance required to support internet privacy (on one hand) and on the other, recommend having a government body regulate _the entire internet_.

I wonder if this breakdown is at least in part between populations in the USA and everyone else.

I've sat down with some pro-nn folks, honestly trying to understand how they reconcile the two, and have not made much progress.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#169

Post by saycheese » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 9:11 PM UTC

throwaway399 wrote: post #139

saycheese wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Thiel was attacked nonstop and people were organizing to stop using PayPal which he is only tangentially affiliated with. Uber CEO had to stop his collaboration as Lyft started catching up for the first time in a long time. Elon also faced a lot of heat and had to qualify his statements. Negative reactions towards him were counteracted by his accomplishments and clean energy contributions. I think people should colla…

Be afraid all you want, doesn't matter to me.

Thiel knew he'd be attacked, took a risk, and there's zero reason to believe he's not happy with the results; if you think Thiel cares what the "Bay Area" thinks, I'd be interested in your reasoning.

Uber's not even worth covering, they're currently a cluster F$&@ waiting to happen and the idea that it was somehow born of talking with Trump is what it is.

Bay Area and for the matter the greater tech community needs to engage the world, not withdraw from it.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#170

Post by kbar13 » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 9:12 PM UTC

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…

yet comcast has a virtual monopoly on last mile. which is the only part that matters. many towns only have comcast (or like dialup or something crazy slow). let's take an extreme example where comcast uses a blackout to get a better deal with youtube. customers don't have the option to switch to a different provider. even if they did have the choice, it's not as simple as just calling up a new provider to switch services, you have to wait to get activated, at the worst case a matter of days before someone can come out to install hardware.