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

261–270 of 415 posts

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#261

Post by rfrank »

Keverw wrote: post #260
rfrank wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I haven't been following the whole NSA/CIA stuff as much lately, but from my understanding Google, Facebook never directly sold people's information. Yes, they monetize it I knew that but It was from my understanding companies mostly "rent" the data without getting a copy of the data(just using it). > YMMV, but I find working for companies who's business model is to exploit other people's personal information for pro…

I work in marketing. Not selling data direct to people like you or I does not mean they don't sell data. Depending on how hard you try, you can get enormously specific with just the data you are supplied by them. I perceive their business model as fundamentally bad (I would use the word wrong or repugnant), and their willingness to comply with us intelligence agencies is worse. I realize this is an increasingly uncommon sentiment in the bay, that sort of idealism died here a long time ago.

https://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking...

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#262

Post by aianus »

dragonwriter wrote: post #142
dsr_ wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? The ISP filters the banner before it reaches the customer, and replaces it with their own message (or just advertising from someone who has paid the ISP.)

This is not possible on an https connection and HSTS preloading prevents ISPs from downgrading secure connections.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#263

Post by grotsnot »

blhack wrote: post #234
reggieband wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a closer analogy would be: Should the power company be able to offer you a discount based on the brand of appliance you use. e.g. If you had a GE fridge in your house should you get a discount on your power usage (all other things being equal). So if you have a GE fridge you pay $0.10 per kilowatt, but a Samsung fridge will cost you $0.15 From my perspective, along the last mile a bit is a bit. The fact that…

I really want the electricity analogy to be good, but the reality is that it isn't. A bit is not a bit. Some bits actually are cheaper to deliver than others.

How so?

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#264

Post by erikpukinskis »

d--b wrote: post #251

Like Altman, I am amazed that this is not inflaming the community again. In order to pass an unpopular law, you just need to try to pass it several times, until the public gets tired of protesting?

I suppose the next question is: should the voice of protesters matter more than the overall opinion of the populace, which come election time is that Net Neutrality isn't even worth talking about?

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#265

Post by rbanffy »

danielweber wrote: post #171
gz5 wrote: post #56

The utility should be the fiber (or spectrum). Regulate that; leave the ISPs to then compete openly. Today's software can enable multiple ISPs to share the fiber/spectrum. I could then have 10 ISPs today and 15 ISPs tomorrow. I might use ISP #1 for certain content, and ISP #2 for certain services. ISPs essentially become a function of the services and content they provide, and how they provide it, in an ultra-competi…

Isn't that what happened to the DSL market? No one will bother laying new infrastructure because anyone can use it.

You can always make the government take care of what is becoming increasingly fundamental infrastructure.

But then you'll be called a communist.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#266

Post by defgeneric »

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…

The comparison to the power company is natural because the hardware infrastructure is similar, but the crucial difference is that power lines don't carry communications (for the most part). Energy is more easily made into a commodity because it can be quantified in natural physical units. For communications it's much harder. The definition of "services" like YouTube will be necessarily incomplete because its definition is socially-mediated to begin with. Or, if ISPs were to charge based not on services but instead go deeper, so e.g. ICMP and UDP might be cheaper than TCP, you still need to rely on some judgment made by someone out there. These necessarily incomplete definitions will create huge inefficiencies in the system as a whole, generate useless extra work, and so on.

It hobbles the system as a whole in order to provide the justification for price differentials which would drive profits for ISPs. This is basically a money grab on the part of the ISPs (natural monopolies).

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#267

Post by gist »

> What's clearly not OK is taking it further--charging different services different rates based on their relationships with ISPs. You wouldn't accept your electric company charging you different rates depending on the manufacturer of each of your appliances.

Some electric companies do charge different rates to different types of customers depending on what type of business those customers are in and w/o regard to actual usage (which can also vary rates).

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#269

Post by rsync »

JediWing wrote: post #208
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…

Sure, "some kind of public network", but then it can't be advertised as "Internet access" because at that point you're providing access to your public network, not access to the Internet as a whole. The issue is ISPs, who by definition are supposed to provide Internet access. Throttling and filtering for profit are not compatible with the Internet as we know it.

"Sure, "some kind of public network", but then it can't be advertised as "Internet access""

No, I should have been more clear - I mean an Internet connected network that is open to the (paying, presumably) public.

Again, we know lots of ways you can't do that because of common carrier laws and public rights of way ... and even human decency ... but if I conjure the thing up out of thin air and there's nobody twisting your arm, I should be able to run that thing.

And then throttle your speeds to xyz.com in favor of abc.com.

Or whatever.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#270

Post by gist »

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…

> I think people should collaborate but in a clandestine fashion.

The fact that people can't even meet to have a discussion is just simply wrong.

Without communication between parties almost nothing will happen.

Post reply on HN