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

241–250 of 415 posts

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#241

Post by acdha »

tetrep wrote: post #120
acdha wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rema…

It's less competitive but I think “extremely anti-competitive” is an overstatement: it might mean that when you talk competition to Comcast, Verizon, etc. you're talking about companies on the scale of Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc. but those would be an option whereas without some sort of parity it'd be the choice between using your ISP's service or paying $200/month.

I do agree that there's a public-good aspect to supporting Internet access but I think that's an even greater change to the current market, at least where most users are on wireless.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#242

Post by guelo »

bifrost wrote: post #167
guelo wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

I've worked in big ISPs, I know exactly how it works, and it's never to the benefit of the customers. Especially when there's zero competitive pressure.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#243

Post by Keverw »

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…

It's an interesting idea, but unlimited is nice. This idea kinda reminds me of how the telephone network works. Basically everything a call is connected, there's a "dip" fee.

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

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#244

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

I don't think that NN legislation is the answer. It's a social solution to a technical problem. We shouldn't be making it illegal to discriminate between traffic types, we should be making it impossible. Encrypt everything by default, encrypt and anonymize DNS, and generally get rid of the ability for ISPs to tell one data stream from another. Unfortunately this requires re-architecting quite a lot of the Internet, so it's even less likely to happen quickly than getting a bunch of politicians to stop listening to lobbyists or ISPs to actually compete with one another.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#245

Post by acdha »

rdl wrote: post #232
acdha wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found the wording in your second sentence a bit confusing but I think that simply goes back to the fair/open aspects: let Comcast put VOD servers in every neighborhood in the country, but require them to allow Netflix, Google, etc. to purchase rack-space at cost so they have the option of parity.

Yes -- if they are a regulated monopoly, that is the best way to allow some bits to be "premium". I think CDNs would likely also put servers in those places, so smaller sites would have the ability to use them as well. Competition > Regulated Monopoly > Unregulated Monopoly. (A duopoly which decides not to compete isn't really competition.)

Some CDNs already do but this would at least make that more open and less of a back-room deal, too, so someone like Fastly doesn't suffer because the Akamai negotiator was in the same frat as the Comcast person they're negotiating with.

I think the regulated monopoly model makes the most sense for the last mile connection: make it like what we had with DSL where anyone can rent the wire and competition happens at the service level. I wouldn't mind Verizon offering a ton of bundled services over FIOS if I could simply buy only internet from someone else.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#246

Post by nocman »

cmurf wrote: post #224
nocman wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with. Do you have some hard data that says things break down so clearly along party lines? I'd particularly like to see data about non-politicians, if it is available, since the way Congress votes on such things is not necessarily driven by the way their constituents view the issue (if they are even aware of it).

I am referring to the statements and policies voted on and implemented by FCC regulators. Asking about non-politicians on the face of it seems pointless, my entire comment is about policy. And that is necessarily about the politics. The affiliation of plebians doesn't matter, what matters is the ideology of those with the power to enact the policy. Ajit Pai opposes any sort of regulation that prescribes or proscribes…

"Asking about non-politicians on the face of it seems pointless"

Except that the tone of your post implies:

Republicans="evil rich people" Democrats="good folks looking out for the average Joe"

I don't believe it is anywhere near that simple. It was not at all clear to me that your original post was referring to FCC regulators alone. It would have been better if that would have been explicitly stated at the outset.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#247

Post by rdl »

acdha wrote: post #245
rdl wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes -- if they are a regulated monopoly, that is the best way to allow some bits to be "premium". I think CDNs would likely also put servers in those places, so smaller sites would have the ability to use them as well. Competition > Regulated Monopoly > Unregulated Monopoly. (A duopoly which decides not to compete isn't really competition.)

Some CDNs already do but this would at least make that more open and less of a back-room deal, too, so someone like Fastly doesn't suffer because the Akamai negotiator was in the same frat as the Comcast person they're negotiating with. I think the regulated monopoly model makes the most sense for the last mile connection: make it like what we had with DSL where anyone can rent the wire and competition happens at the…

The downside of removing competitive pressure on the physical last mile is it removes the incentive to invest in building it.

Fiber to the Home is an extremely marginal economic proposition today. It's not deployed today. Without strong economic drivers for it, it won't get built.

I'd accept that once FTTH exists (bringing fiber back to a neighborhood point), that might be good enough to not require more competition at that level (as long as maintenance can be done.) I'd in principle be fine with any solution to get that built -- a regulated monopoly, direct government buildout, whatever.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#248

Post by colonelxc »

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…

Maybe a better example is paying more for electricity from 'green' sources like solar/wind. This is an option offered by PG&E right now.

Comparing to websites, you can have all the "common" websites that have local caches, peered with your ISP directly, for low rate X. If you want access to a niche video streaming startup that has to go through other peers we haven't optimized for, you pay more.

It's still not a perfect analogy, but it forms a similar comparison "Where do I get (content|electricty) from?"

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#249

Post by chimeracoder »

cma wrote: post #174
throwaway399 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would you also disagree with a company/labor union distinction?

> Would you also disagree with a company/labor union distinction?

Labor unions are corporations, and corporations will fight for the corporation's interests. Those interests may align with the interests of their shareholders, but they may not always.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#250

Post by rfrank »

Keverw wrote: post #206
rfrank wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not Google or Facebook founders, executives, and employees whose salaries are paid with the profits of selling other peoples' information? Why not the C-suite of the ISPs who will happily sell user data? Why not the entire adtech industry? Ajit Pai is one actor in a very corrupt system, and a lot of that system is based in San Francisco.

Do Google and Facebook really sell data? From my understanding, they keep the data for ad targeting, feature/content recommendations. Like if I place an ad on Facebook I could put 18 to 35, who likes travel, etc to promote a hotel booking site as an example. Even if you do retarget with Facebook advertising, they don't even show you the names of the people. You have like a retargeting list, it tells you how many peop…

Yes. Giving the NSA direct access to their databases doesn't seem like caring about user privacy to me. I don't perceive the 'consent' issue the same way; sending an email or uploading a picture to the internet shouldn't require 100 different data points on my device and location. YMMV, but I find working for companies who's business model is to exploit other people's personal information for profit is an enormously distasteful thing to do.

The whole discussion is a farce at this point. Tech workers who literally created the incentive to make clickbait content, filter bubbles, and data silos are now upset with "fake news", social polarization, and a "closed" net, while flatly refusing to acknowledge their role in getting us here over the last 20 years. Ajit Pai is the last person to blame when wondering who broke the net.

Post reply on HN