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

301–310 of 415 posts

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#301

Post by gergles »

aianus wrote: post #262
dragonwriter wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In the near future: "To provide optimum security and privacy for your internet browsing, you must now install our Comcastic™ Special Magic Certificate®. Failure to install our certificate will result in browsing being restricted. If you don't like it, go to a competitor."

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#302

Post by saycheese »

rfrank wrote: post #293
saycheese wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, one is addressing a single person that's said they afraid of talking in public for fear of blowback and another is directed to the Bay Area and greater tech community asking them to engage the world. What am I missing?

That the blowback from tech employees is a real thing which directly contributes to lack of dialog between people with different political opinions, and not caring about the individual while imploring the community at large to engage is a ridiculous and contradictory position. A pair of riots in Berkeley within a month, San Jose during the election, the Brendan Eich situation, myriad letters from CEOs post election.…

There is no contraction, engaging the world, especially those that may not agree with you, is potentially dangerous and if you're afraid to do so, then don't.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#303

Post by cookiecaper »

guelo wrote: post #233
wonder_er wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

reasonable political ideologies can lead to "extreme" outcomes. (I consider an extreme outcome to be one that requires human nature to change, in order to be successful.) Since I think bureaucrats are gonna bureaucrat, handing them power over anything is a terrible idea. Are companies good? no, many of them are terrible. But if enough people don't like a company, the company ceases to exist. I've yet to see a similar…

Comcast is one of the most hated companies ever but they only keep getting bigger. "Bureaucrats" are ultimately responsive to the politicians which are ultimately responsive to us, as we see with Trump now getting the power to reshape Obama's FCC policies. I'll tell you this, if they really go through with giving the web over to the ISPs for them to ruin with nickel and dime schemes voters will eventually force your…

Comcast is now a massive company that offers a lot more than telecommunication services. A lot of people really like many things that Comcast owns.

While we've set up a complex representative government to try and hold the people in power to account, that is still much more rigid and manipulable than the fluidity of a highly-competitive commercial market.

We need to focus on making the markets run well organically, not trying to make things happen by fiat.

Net neutrality is arguably part of that, but it's not the only, or even the major, part of it. The biggest part is finding some way to allow open competitive access to the in-the-ground infrastructure that runs modern telecoms. Net neutrality is a band-aid to cover up the fact that most Americans are beholden to a single ISP for data services. In a functioning marketplace, it wouldn't be necessary, because if $ISP_Y slowed down $Site_X, $ISP_Y's users would, in theory, move to $ISP_Z.

In reality, most consumers would probably happily accept a plan that allowed universal access at 5mbps and "turbo access" to some sites in exchange for a lower monthly fee. I understand that makes some people unhappy, but that doesn't mean we should deprive people of the freedom to make that tradeoff if they wish to do so.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#304

Post by marknutter »

rbanffy wrote: post #265
danielweber wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And rightfully so, since taking care of it would mean the Ministry of Communications has deemed the current available bandwidth sufficient for serving the government's approved content (propaganda), thus eliminating the need for improved infrastructure. People should be in the fields growing food for their comrades anyways, not sitting on the internet.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#305

Post by rfrank »

saycheese wrote: post #302
rfrank wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the blowback from tech employees is a real thing which directly contributes to lack of dialog between people with different political opinions, and not caring about the individual while imploring the community at large to engage is a ridiculous and contradictory position. A pair of riots in Berkeley within a month, San Jose during the election, the Brendan Eich situation, myriad letters from CEOs post election.…

There is no contraction, engaging the world, especially those that may not agree with you, is potentially dangerous and if you're afraid to do so, then don't.

> going out and engaging the world is potentially dangerous

Do you think this is reasonable in the context of expressing your support for the leader of your nation at your workplace? I certainly don't think so.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#306

Post by Animats »

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 Google tried being a retail ISP, with Google Fiber, and gave up. They've also tried some WiFi things, and toyed with being a wireless telco. But Google backed away from being a carrier. The margins aren't that good and you actually have to service customers.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#307

Post by intrasight »

aero142 wrote: post #283
OriginalPenguin wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And once they found it, they'd charge exactly one cent less.

This whole chain is just parroting reddit comments without thinking it through. You act as though there is nothing that happens with market forces other that monopoly corruption. Let's start with the fact that by market cap, Google is 590B and Comcast is 177B, so simply buying ISPs is a real possibility. You also just out of hand dismiss any other possible outcomes. So, here some off the top of my head. * Local munic…

There are more and more local municipalities that are doing just that, and finding that it makes their communities very attractive places to live and do business. Of course the big ISPs fight this by sponsoring legislation making it illegal for a municipality to own and operate a network.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#309

Post by omegaham »

mehaveaccount wrote: post #189
drewrv wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of all, they are pro getting rich(er). They wouldn't be where they are today if that was not their top priority in life.

True, I always wonder what it must be like to be those billionaires because I would have retired after my first 10 million.

I think that if you have the drive to get to that point, you have a mindset that's not going to be satisfied with quitting.

It's like the folks who work extremely hard at amateur sports. They're not going to be content with placing in the top 100. "Welp, I made the top 100. What a ride. Alright, I'm good. I'll keep cycling, but I'm not going to be training as hard anymore." They're looking at what they need to do to get into the top 50.

Why does Paul Graham do what he does? He didn't even need to start Y Combinator. After Y Combinator had a bunch of success, he could have retired then, too. He's still plugging away. I assume he gets fulfillment from winning in a competitive marketplace, because he could, at any point, say, "Wait, why am I bothering with this? I'm rich!"

The fact that he's still working is an indicator that for some people, work and business is just as fulfilling as, say, backpacking and weightlifting is for me.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#310

Post by bo1024 »

mcbits wrote: post #194
bo1024 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is better for a poor Iraqi to get free Wikipedia even though that hurts other upstart wikis, than for poor Iraqis to have no Wikipedia at all. I don't accept this premise. This is a false dichotomy because these are not the only two options. There is a third, better option: to get access to the entire internet. A company offering you that choice is using a classic game-theoretic bargaining approach: commit to on…

I remember a progression going something like this: 1. Local folks taking turns calling a handful of BBSes. 2. BBSes synchronizing some messages with each other, even long-distance. 3. BBSes providing some limited Internet services (email, newsgroups). 4. Quasi-Internet services like Prodigy, Compuserve, AOL. 5. Slow but "real" Internet access. All content available but still had to ration use. 6. Fast, ubiquitous, u…

I think we're on different pages somewhat because you seem to be thinking mostly about challenges facing developing economies in various parts of the world, whereas I'm thinking mostly about the infrastructure, vampiric monopolies, and regulations in the USA, where we are mostly trying to (1) prevent regressions from #6 backwards, (2) move up places that sit at #5 for no reason other than monopoly ISPs, (3) improve infrastructure for true #5s.
Post reply on HN