Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 452 posts

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#261

Post by rocqua »

zepto wrote: post #235
natoliniak wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you cannot acquire a corpus of decades of historical searches and click data nor can you employ the thousands of human raters No, but as soon as Google starts abusing their monopoly status by turning into something reminiscent of Alta Vista, a new search engine will sprout up. Google itself grew like wildfire in the late 90s not only because it offered superior search results, but because of the massive global reach…

How will this new search engine 'spring up' if nobody can build a better search engine because the resources are not available? You are right that net neutrality enabled Google's growth, but the barriers to a Google competitor are different now, and far more difficult to overcome than what Google faced. Google is not trusted, but people use it because there is no alternative and the barriers to an alternative being b…

Google's only non-technical reputation in the search engine department is reputation. Should google fall, Bing would easily be replace google.

The biggest challenge in replacing google would be getting the advertisers. Especially because at the start, your low userbase makes targeted adds much harder to pull off.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#262

Post by ocdtrekkie »

jfaucett wrote: post #16

Does anyone else find the internet market odd? Up until now net neutrality and other policies have given us the following: 1. Massive monopolies which essentially control 95% of all tech (google, facebook, amazon, microsoft, apple, etc) 2. An internet where every consumer assumes everything should be free. 3. An internet where there's only enough room for a handfull of players in each market globally i.e. if you have…

I do generally remain in support of net neutrality, but your point about the big tech monopolies supporting it is still worth discussing.

If ISPs could charge web sites for fast lane treatment and such, Google, Netflix etc. would have the largest bills to pay.

They'll argue it as a moral point to drum up grassroots support, but in reality its just a business item for them. If the roles were reversed they'd push for the policy that let them charge other companies more.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#263

Post by marjwyatt »

croon wrote: post #39

http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].

I don't know whether or not it is a conspiracy theory but John Oliver's link has not worked in either Chrome or Firefox since he exposed this last night on his show. So, I went at it manually because I have not been able to overcome the blank screen effect and this is important!

Here are the manual steps: 1) Navigate to: http://fcc.gov/ecfs/search-proceedings 2) On the next form, fill Specify Proceeding box with 17-108 3) Search 4) On subsequent page, select: Restoring Internet Freedom 5) Then choose + Express link and complete the comment form

P.S. I cleared my browser cookies first to ensure any cookies dropped by the FCC site weren't inhibiting me.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#264

Post by seanp2k2 »

Shivetya wrote: post #90
an_account wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) happens naturally in most markets. Without net-neutrality I believe that it would be harder for these companies to be dethroned if something better came along. 2) I think will only continue to be true for a short period of time. With products like Netflix and amazon, and with traditional television channels like HBO and ESPN starting to charge for streaming online, I think consumer attitude will shift as they real…

The issue I take with Net Neutrality is that regulation is just a likely to enshrine the existing players so firmly no one can break in because regulation protects it. Net Neutrality is not a magic cure all and it isn't neutral when only one side has to change. both providers of bandwidth and providers of services would need to adhere to specific rules for it to not stagnate and recreate AT&T/etc we suffered through…

ATT got back together after being broken into pieces and now they control much more https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/24/13389592/att-time-warner...

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#265

Post by stdgy »

jpadkins wrote: post #248
Dirlewanger wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you will have choices. No, companies will go with the cheaper route i.e. continue the comfy collusions they have now. You're insane if you think they'll magically start sharing their own infrastructures with each other.

no, I expect them to build redundant connections to homes / neighood POPs. Especially for cities that plan well and design for easily pulling new wire through existing conduit. The first build out of fiber to the curb is expensive. 2-N is cheap if you do it right.

Outside of large cities, most of America can't even afford the upkeep associated with their existing infrastructure. I'm not sure how you think they'll be able to afford large scale fiber deployments.

Or maybe you're saying that private ISPs will perform the deployment and then share their fiber? Which seems wildly unrealistic.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#266

Post by Dragonai »

alexanderdmitri wrote: post #211
pbhowmic wrote: post #11

I tried commenting on the proceeding at the FCC site but I keep getting service unavailable errors. The FCC site itself is up but conveniently we the public cannot comment on the issue.

you can upload a document with your comment here: https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom-comments-wc-d... you can also submit via API: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/public-api-docs.html

> you can also submit via API: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/public-api-docs.html

That's dope, I had no idea this was available. Thanks for sharing!

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#267

Post by marcgcombi »

laughingman2 wrote: post #148

I never thought hackernews would have so many opposing net neutrality. Is some alt-right brigading this thread? which is ironic considering how they claim to care about free speech.

Pretty much, only liberal progressive "brigade" holes like this....

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#268

Post by deadbunny »

weberc2 wrote: post #220
deadbunny wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with privacy, it's about treating everyone's traffic the same.

I was referring to 'privacy' in the sense of knowing who you are, who you're communicating with, and what traffic you're sending. An ISP must know some of those things before they can impose any of the Very Scary scenarios invoked in the article.

Assuming full end to end encryption (eg: TLS) an ISP has to know who you are (source IP) and who you are talking to (destination IP) there is absolutely no way around that if you want to use the internet; that's just how networking works.

One way to cut the ISP out of the loop is to use a VPN so all your ISP sees is you (the source IP) talking to your VPN provider but this just shifts the "who knows who you're talking to to" the VPN provider (who may have these restrictions as well). Tor offers good* anonymity but if you start steaming videos over Tor you're going to have a bad time.

Yes the ISP needs to know who you're talking to to apply these limits so a VPN can help bypass things like speed limiting but many services like Netflix block VPN providers (to stop people getting round region locks etc...), alternatively ISPs could just start limiting all traffic to your VPN provider as they would to Netflix or YouTube.

The issue is that ISPs want both parties to pay for bandwidth (you with your subscription, the providers with peering), don't pay? your users suffer, so your business suffers, so pay the protection racket to make sure your packets reach where they're supposed to.

* Good enough for most people trying to be anonymous, but there are still multiple attacks possible to reveal who you are if you're targeted and sloppy.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#269

Post by marcgcombi »

deadbunny wrote: post #109
marcgcombi wrote: post #97

Someone whom has read and UNDERSTANDS the Net Neutrality legislation AND code of regulation, please comment. If you have only stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, please restrain yourself :-) Having been a user of the Internet prior to the birth of the HTTP standard, I find these arguments spurious, straw men, and red herrings. But, I am open (probably more open, than my progressive peers) to being better informed. So pl…

> Help me to understand how freedom of speech was attenuated, prior to Net Neutral, or how was it ACTUALLY threatened? Why couldn't I have published my own blog or editorial site, now or in the future? You can publish your blog all you like, but you need people to be able to route to it and have bandwidth to download from your server. If you don't have an agreement with every ISP (not just the ones you already pay ac…

Deadbunny, I asked that knowledgeable people respond.

1) Your first response is a total red herring. What you propose has never happened, ever. What has happened was Netflix throttling itself https://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-admits-throttling-video-sp... https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/shinal/2016/03...

2) That's patently false, there are many small and independent ISP's and just about anyone can plop down an DSL Access Module (DSLAM) on the local infrastructure and wammo, you're an ISP. You stupid, dude.

3) Consumers will drive demand... sorry, that's how it is. And ISP's have never and probably will never ever try to negotiate 1000's upon 1000's of subscriber revenue sharing agreements with ever stupid "ten white guys in hoodies" startup. From a feasibility standpoint, it's impossible to implement and manage.

4) I wasn't referring to ISP-to-ISP peering agreements, numb skull. I was referring to ISP taxing large service providers (e.g. Fakebook or Netflix or Amazon) to carry that traffic without nerfing it.

Post reply on HN