Net neutrality is in jeopardy again • Hacker News Board

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#431

Post by aphexbr » Tue, May 09, 2017, 12:50 PM UTC

jpadkins wrote: post #175

pikzen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, European here. Do you want to compare access to broadband in ANY of our countries to the US so I can have a laugh?

http://broadbandcountrydata.law.upenn.edu/the-facts/

"Data analyzed for this report reveals, however, that the U.S. led in many broadband metrics in 2011 and 2012."

Anything more recent? I can tell you from my experience in the south of Spain that investment and availability in broadband has improved massively since that report was provided (e.g. I personally was struggling to get the full advertised 10Mbps in my area 5 years ago, I've had solid 300Mbps for around €25/month extra for a year now). I wouldn't be surprised if the study took place shortly before fibre and other investment in certain areas really came to fruition.

I also see they seem to be hedging things in the summary descriptions (e.g. mentioning cost as a positive on the US side, but then making excuses while they admit that US access is only cheaper at slow speeds), so that doesn't seem particularly convincing.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#432

Post by mcv » Tue, May 09, 2017, 12:56 PM UTC

c8g wrote: post #334

> Net neutrality is fundamental to competition. so, I won't get 20 times faster youtube. fuck that net neutrality.

Your speed depends on the speed of your own connection, not on whether youtube has a special deal with your ISP.

Net Neutrality means you are the customer of your ISP, rather than the content provider.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#433

Post by dsp1234 » Tue, May 09, 2017, 2:23 PM UTC

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.

non-anonymized, non-aggregate selling of ISP data is still outlawed by

Your statement is too strong. It's not outlawed. There is a relatively easy avenue for ISPs to sell this type of data, and it's written into the law, and not some sort of weird loophole. It is voluntary that they have not pursued it on their part.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#434

Post by stolsvik » Tue, May 09, 2017, 2:31 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #419

guelo wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying this most recent regulation does absolutely nothing, even though it was the highest priority for the incoming industry friendly regulator. Seems doubtful that some 1984 law is going to protect our browsing data.

You're correct. But only because - per Chaos Monkeys, Dragnet Nation, and the like - your data is already being captured, aggregated, and sold. If that's your concern, you're too late. On the other hand if your concern is specify to ISPs (as opposed to other entities you don't even know) then sure worry and complain. But at least your ISP has an incentive to not go too crazy, as the data they sell could be used to ma…

You can turn cookies off or similar, or you can choose to not use or employ such services. That the ISP can do this, without your consent - each DNS lookup, each TCP connection you're making - is a whole different thing.

I think it is truly insane.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#435

Post by colanderman » Tue, May 09, 2017, 2:38 PM UTC

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...

Not a valid analogy. AOL, Compuserve, et. al. didn't own the wires entering your house. Comcast, Verizon, et. al. do. The barrier to entry to start an ISP in the days of dialup was much lower.

The "free market" will not be a savior here.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#436

Post by PeterisP » Tue, May 09, 2017, 3:33 PM UTC

drawnwren wrote: post #414

PeterisP wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 go…

What was the 'open internet'? I genuinely am not comprehending what drove AOL and Compuserve to tear their walls down.

While the internet as such existed, at the heyday of AOL&Compuserve residental users were not able to get a connection to internet as such at reasonable prices.

By the 'open internet' I mean the arrival of ISPs who offered consumers direct connectivity with all the internet, competing with AOL who offered connectivity to, well, AOL.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#437

Post by jpadkins » Tue, May 09, 2017, 5:06 PM UTC

stdgy wrote: post #265

jpadkins wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Rural flat areas: I expect fixed point wireless to be more prevalent.

firms specialize, it's an important attribute of a functioning free market. If there is demand for running fiber through conduits, local firms might specialize in that type of construction, especially if local knowledge and working with local governments can be leveraged across customers. Many industries are not vertically integrated where specialization is more efficient than vertical integration. (i.e. Ford stopped making tires and glass)

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#438

Post by cLeEOGPw » Tue, May 09, 2017, 5:27 PM UTC

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…

Not sure if shill or it's your genuine thoughts.

But following your logic, power plants should charge depending on what you use your electricity for, water company should charge depending on where you put your water, grocery stores should charge depending on what (they think) you do with the food, etc. Net neutrality is a slippery slope to total corporate control of every aspect of life, internet being just the beginning. This is a wet dream of all the shareholders of all ISPs and all other service providers. Non-neutral web is against everyone's interest, even if it would boost the profit margin of some ISPs in short term.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#439

Post by jfaucett » Tue, May 09, 2017, 6:39 PM UTC

TheActualWalko wrote: post #184

jfaucett wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"NN being gutted are those around loss of anonymity through the Internet." How is that by necessity a bad thing? People aren't anonymous in every day life and their internet anonymity is mostly an illusion anyway. Big brother can almost always find out who did what if they want to. " These "rollbacks" of regulations make it orders of magnitude easier for any entity in a corporation or organization to track down peopl…

One of the best responses I've heard to this particular line of reasoning is recorded here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30JORRy7F0A&t=53s Not the same scenario being discussed, but worth noting that the consequences of a loss of anonymity through the internet have the potential to be a lot farther-reaching and more sinister than they are in any analogous loss of anonymity in everyday life. I'd be interested to he…

The engineer is conflating privacy with security. These are not the same thing and they are constantly confused when people discuss this topic. I can for instance lock my house in such a way that no one can enter (security) but broadcast everything I do inside the house to everyone worldwide (no privacy). Conversely, I can stand in front of a closed curtain and no one can see me (privacy) but if someone shoots a bullet it will easily penetrate the curtain and kill me (no security).

I agree with him that the consequences of loss of anonymity are worse than a loss of anonymity in everyday life. In everyday life if a person sees my credit card number I only have to worry about that person say, whereas conversely on the internet its as if everyone the world over were to see my credit card number.

Assuming we don't have NN i.e. anonymity then the world knows everytime I use my credit card (no privacy). However, they do not know my credit card number because its encrypted (security).

So my thinking hasn't changed much after listening to the google engineers argument, I still think its a much better balance of powers to have everyone have access to everything than only those with the skills or power to acquire it, since I think given an absence of anonymity we would build better software and societal structures to ensure we have security for everyone even though privacy might be gone.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#440

Post by jfaucett » Tue, May 09, 2017, 6:49 PM UTC

methehack wrote: post #182

jfaucett wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"NN being gutted are those around loss of anonymity through the Internet." How is that by necessity a bad thing? People aren't anonymous in every day life and their internet anonymity is mostly an illusion anyway. Big brother can almost always find out who did what if they want to. " These "rollbacks" of regulations make it orders of magnitude easier for any entity in a corporation or organization to track down peopl…

Anonymity balances power. Think not about this government, but the next, and the next after that. How much more thorough, brutal, and administratively easier would China's "cultural revolution" been if this technology had been in place in China as Mao took power? What if they could have used ISP logs for kill lists? IMO, you trust too much in existing social structures and laws. As unimaginable as they are, these thi…

You're acting as if our governments don't have access to all this information already which they do.

Its because I do not trust social structures and government that I think anonymity needs to go away.

In a truly de-anonymized system if you are a malevolent actor (gov't or individual) anywhere your actions are broadcasted to the world and people or governments can respond before too much damage is done, no one cares what the benevolent actor is doing.

In a fully anonymous system a malevolent actor can run wild and no one will be able to stop him. The same is true for a benevolent actor, but in a de-anonymized system no one is trying to stop him anyway.

The whole thing though does depend on whether you think the world at large is made up in majority of benevolent people willing and wanting to help their fellow man or malevolent people wishing to do damage in the world.

I think the majority is benevolent which is why I'm for de-anonymizing structures.