Live data from Hacker News

Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

blog.mozilla.org

361–370 of 452 posts

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#361

Looking at Comcast's webpage on this: http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-supports... They're arguing that Title II Classification is not the same as Net Neutrality, with the following statement: "Title II is a source of authority to impose enforceable net neutrality rules. Title II is not net neutrality. Getting rid of Title II does not mean that we are repealing net neutrality protections for Americ…

>Wasn't that the reasoning behind Title II in the first place Yes, Verizon v FCC [1] ruled that Title II classification is required for any sort of NN regulation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v....

Other than passing a new law, which is at least my preferred means to substantially change policy governing a huge industry.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's better privacy tech + increased competition via elimination of local monopolies. Do we really want to depend on government to enforce privacy on the Internet Unfortunately, if that ever hapoens it won't be any time soon. ISP's just throw lawyers at new entrants to the market who can, through legal maneuvering, delay entrance by years and fighting them will cost a fortune. There were some successes by m…

Is there any evidence that this is the principle problem for ISPs? I looked into it several years ago, and everything seemed to suggest that the barrier to entry was arcane local regulation or absurdly inflated charges for access to use public rights of way.

I've read numerous stories of ISP's suing municipal governments who try to implement their own ISP to prevent entry to market because ATT or Comcast won't invest in higher bandwidth speeds

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#363

Net neutrality is fundamental to free speech. Without net neutrality, big companies could censor your voice and make it harder to speak up online. Net neutrality has been called the “First Amendment of the Internet.” Not just harder. Infinitely more dangerous. Probably the scariest implications for NN being gutted are those around loss of anonymity through the Internet. ISPs who are allowed to sell users' browsing hi…

I'm not American, so please correct me if I'm wrong but I have yet to see any proof of this whole 'sell your internet history' complaint that seems to be blatently copied by everyone without any research. The way I understand it is that ISPs can sell anonymized data from groups of users. Like: people who visit news.ycombinator.com generally also visit stackoverflow. I also don't know how an ISP would get your actual…

[deleted]

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remove net neutrality or any semblance of it. ISPs now control who has access to their customers. Big businesses (Netflix, Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft) can afford these costs. DuckDuckGo cannot. Wikipedia cannot. Startup #9 cannot. Yeah, sure, the data maybe still gets through. But now it's getting through at a reduced rate and (potentially) lower quality of service. This prevents new businesses from being able…

So why wasn't this a problem for the 30+ years we had no NN rules in place?

Initially, because net neutrality was just how business was done. It also helped that while there were certainly commercial applications of the early internet, they were fewer, and business-to-business more than business-to-consumer. Consumer applications of the internet were essentially non-existent outside, perhaps, informational and communication oriented, not consumption oriented (in the media sense). Then by the 90s you were dealing with more, and local, ISPs. These ensured a certain level of cooperation or you'd risk being booted out because you'd be known as a bad actor. This is also when consumer applications for the internet really start, but were also generally lower bandwidth (certainly due to the last-mile connections being slow, 28.8k to 56k modems, at the time, ISPs could handle you maxing out your 28.8k modem because you could only do so much damage to their total bandwidth pool).

Then with broadband you end up with users given access to a larger portion of the pool, akin to overbooking an airline. If everyone in my town gets 1Mbps but the local ISP can only handle 1Gbps, well, 1000 users maxing it out will shut the rest of the town out. This gets to a legitimate case for traffic shaping, ensuring equal access to the common resource pool. Those users can still max it, but only when everyone else isn't using it (or using it minimally).

However, traffic shaping (and related things like blatant packet dropping) started being more generally applied, to whole protocols (bittorrent) or services (Netflix, et al.). The latter example is a particularly good example of a conflict of interest. Companies like Comcast control so many user experiences in the US, but they own NBC and other media brands, as well as providing video-on-demand services as part of their cable offerings. They have a clear reason to want to reduce the QoS of Netflix and can, legally, without network neutrality. This is directly harmful to customers experiences, and a bordering on an abuse of market position.

===

Really, though, it's silly to look at how things worked 30 years ago and think the exact same rules will apply today. The circumstances have all changed. Broadband-requiring, consumer-oriented services didn't exist 30 years ago. They do today. ISPs today are screwing over consumers and prospective new businesses. They are the robber barons of the digital age, imposing their taxes at each bend in the river and screwing over everyone upstream and downstream to make a buck.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#365

I've written it before and I'll write it again (despite the massive downvotes from those who want to silence dissent): Title II regulation of the Internet is not the net neutrality panacea that many people think it is. That is the same kind of heavy-handed regulation that gave us the sorry copper POTS network we are stuck with today. The free market is the solution, and must be defended against those who want Europea…

The free market is also not the panacea that many people think it is. Broadband is an industry where there is a natural monopoly, which is never good for consumers. Last mile infrastructure just costs too much and you can't have umpteen different companies digging holes in the street and stringing wires.

I've said for a while that we could rely on a free market solution to the broadband market with one very large change from the way that things are done now. Last mile infrastructure should be publicly owned and customers should be allowed to choose any provider. Once that's the case, then you can have a truly competitive market that's more likely to give consumers choice. Short of that, heavy regulation is better than allowing monopoly/duopoly players to behave in whatever way they want.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#366
post #322

It's insane the amount of comments on HN of all places that don't understand that the end of Net Neutrality is the end of the open web. People that didn't get a peek at Compuserve have no idea the fire we're playing with here. The open web is the most significant human achievement since the transistor and we're about to kill it happily.

Could you expand on your Compuserve comment? What happened?

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#367
post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, I was neither arguing for nor against net neutrality. I was responding to "With the wide availability of cellular service that provides broadband speeds pretty much everyone in the country has multiple choices of ISP." From a practical standpoint, this is not true for many users. Secondly, I was in no way referring to "insanely fast broadband speeds and data download limits". I was talking about practical…

But you base where you live on the infrastructure available. If high internet speeds are important to you, then moving to a city with better options makes sense. If you want to lie in the boondocks, then that's more important to you than internet.

You're assuming a level of mobility for people that's not actually available.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#368
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 want the FCC to maintain Net Neutrality by retaining Title 2 designation M. Daveiga iceboundcharlie@hotmail.com , 94518

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#370
post #322

It's insane the amount of comments on HN of all places that don't understand that the end of Net Neutrality is the end of the open web. People that didn't get a peek at Compuserve have no idea the fire we're playing with here. The open web is the most significant human achievement since the transistor and we're about to kill it happily.

Could you expand on your Compuserve comment? What happened?

Presumably OP is referring to the walled garden of CompuServe, Prodigy, and others where you could only talk to other CompuServe customers on their proprietary message boards. If you wanted to talk with someone else, it was impossible (until later) because the systems didn't interoperate. CompuServe controlled the message boards, and could control which ones were created (or not created) and thus controlled the message. Not maliciously, just as the nature of their product and the state of technology at the time.
Post reply on HN