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

401–410 of 452 posts

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#401

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

rtx wrote: post #399
FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And 60 mbit is nothing to sneeze at. It's substandard, especially when living in the 2nd largest city in the US. It's nealy unacceptable when the upload speeds are a paltry 5Mbps. I want, a network that simply provides simple bandwidth and network speed while being completely neutral with regard to the services and applications the customer accesses that offers if not symmetrical, usable upload speeds. A dumb pipe…

Are those things profitable.

are public utilities profitable?

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#403

Post by kodablah »

rtx wrote: post #397
super_mario wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not about government enforcing privacy on the internet. That is false analogy, but even if it were good analogy, it would still fail. Do you want government enforcing your personal security (also known as policing)? Would it not be better if guys who are richer and can afford more bullies, intimidate you and ask for money while you are trying to walk by their house/business etc? Net neutrality is about each I…

Youtube already has an unfair advantage, which new video services can't match.

What is unfair about it? Or are you using "unfair" to just mean that they have a "large" advantage?

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#404

Post by PeterisP »

bmelton wrote: post #329
dsp1234 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That section of law says they can sell your data with prior written or electronic permission. 47 U.S. Code § 551 (c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a cable operator shall not disclose personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber without the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber concerned So this section of the law, though another might, does not support your statement that "t…

I think you're misreading it, unless you have reason to believe that you've already given your permission. Either way, the regulation that Trump's EO overturns also allowed you to opt in if you wanted to.

I believe that pretty much every single customer has given their "permission" in that sense, the standard contract or terms&conditions would include language that says that you consent to such information "being processed by selected partners" or something like that.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#405

Post by PeterisP »

drawnwren wrote: post #385
jhardcastle wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 messa…

I used AOL and Compuserve, but after they had both expanded to allowing access to everything. What drove the expansion? It seems like the market worked as expected in this case...

The existence of the open internet made it beneficial to interoperate; lack of it would mean that the expected market interest would require them to not interoperate.

For many markets, the natural consequence of unregulated free market conditions is to aggregate towards a monopolistic or oligopolistic market, which isn't a free market any more. The idealized economic free market isn't a stable equilibrium - it's a good position for society, but it doesn't stay there on it's own, it needs to be kept free by preventing it from devolving into the monopolistic optimum.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#406

Post by bmelton »

shkkmo wrote: post #384
bmelton wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're misreading it, unless you have reason to believe that you've already given your permission. Either way, the regulation that Trump's EO overturns also allowed you to opt in if you wanted to.

Wouldn't a privacy policy cover "the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber concerned"

If so, I don't know how the Obama regulation would have been any different.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#407

Post by dang »

feld wrote: post #381
sctb wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's a difference, it's one that doesn't bring the comment within the guidelines. They don't just ask us not to call people names, they ask us not to call names at all: > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Alright let me replay this conversation: Post: > the free market is broken. I have a choice between two providers but one is a slight inconvenience for me to have installed so I refuse to use it. YC Approved© Reply: > the free market is not broken. 🆒

This evades the point. The point is that you can't post things like "You're just being a prick" to Hacker News. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#408

Post by croon »

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #226
croon wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, which is it HackerNews? Are we OK with companies deciding what gets on the internet, or are we not? On one hand, we laud Facebook et al. for suppressing "fake news", and then we get upset when ISPs do the same. If you could only access the internet through Facebook, you would have a point. You don't. > Furthermore, the FCC has historically engaged in content regulation. Anyone wonder why there's no more cartoon…

> If you could only access the internet through Facebook, you would have a point. Effectively, many people do. They open their web browsers, and search for "facebook", and click the first link. Don't even get me started about Google! My point is that regulating the network and regulating the endpoints are one and the same. It's bad enough when the endpoints do it under the guise of "fake news", it's worse when the go…

> Effectively, many people do. They open their web browsers, and search for "facebook", and click the first link. Don't even get me started about Google!

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the government should draw up regulation to change Googles or Facebooks behavior? What are you even arguing for?

1) No one is forcing people to use Google or Facebook, so people aren't limited by what they decide to promote or not.

2) People are forced to use one ISP (or live with DSL speeds or unreliable wireless) in most areas, both because of local monopolies, and otherwise for upstart costs.

These things are not comparable.

> The current political party will not significantly affect the organizations behavior, either.

They are repealing something they (by your account) themselves instated before. How is that not the work of the political party?

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#409

Post by mmanfrin »

apexalpha wrote: post #123
shawnee_ wrote: post #65

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…

You can't really anonymize data:

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

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#410

Post by J5892 »

sleepingeights wrote: post #129

Many of these articles are missing an easily exploitable position. The key term is "bandwidth" which is the resource at stake. What is being fought over is how to define this "bandwidth" in a way that will be enforceable against the citizen and favorable to the corporation (i.e. "government"). One way they could do this is to divide it like they did the radio spectrum by way of frequency, where frequency is related t…

Bandwidth doesn't have a frequency. Net Neutrality is literally the concept of treating all bandwidth the same, no matter the source.
Post reply on HN