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

One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 223 posts

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#41

Post by YCode »

jackmott wrote: post #32
theprop wrote: post #24

While I think this is a terrible idea, there's not that much to worry about for us as ordinary internet users. There's not going to be a slow & fast lane, at least not anytime soon. ISPs want net neutrality banned so they can "extort" money from Google, Facebook, YouTube, Netflix (to some extent in place), Amazon, etc. They're going to artificially slow those big, rich sites down unless they pay up. Netflix already i…

>there's not that much to worry about for us as ordinary internet users. >"extort" money from Google, Facebook, YouTube, Netflix That's going to degrade my experience or raise my bills at those sites, and make it impossible to make informed decisions when picking an ISP, as I won't know the true costs involved.

> picking an ISP

If you're even lucky enough to have a choice.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#43

Post by BinaryIdiot »

When I worked in the DoD contracting space there were rules handed down that outlines what browser(s) and version(s) you MUST use due to security concerns. It was always Firefox.

This may be an insanely stupid idea, but, as sort of a thought experiment: what would the fallout be if, say, Mozilla changed their license on Firefox to disallow the usage of their browser by government representatives and associated contractors unless they have a viable, open internet policy in their country? Maybe even restrict future updates to existing Firefox builds to require the same license change?

Might cause some significant headaches as they can't update to the latest IE on likely most of their systems and Chrome has too much Google functionality built into it that, I believe, they'd have to use Chromium.

Like I said, probably a dumb idea but I wanted to throw it out there as a thought exercise because I'm curious if something like this could be effective, much like the original internet blackout was.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#44

Post by nulagrithom »

mulletbum wrote: post #20
durandal1 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Stockholm apartment had multiple ISPs competing for service over fiber laid down by a state-owned company. In 2007 this meant symmetric 100mbit for about $30/month.

I live in the country and have this right now. 100mb for $50 or 1000mb for $100.

Where I'm at in the US, we have a Public Utility District that's "owned" by the city (top position is an elected position too). They've run fiber everywhere and leased it to local ISPs.

I can get gigabit for under $90/mo. Lowest tier is 100x10 for under $50.

One of our local ISPs even built a real nice wireless mesh network with a fiber "backbone". You can get low-latency 35x2 service way up in the hills of nowhere.

It's amazing what happens when Internet is treated like a utility.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#46

Post by jbob2000 »

Where is Apple, Google, and Microsoft on this? What is the point of an app store if I can't use 90% of the apps on it? What the hell do I need a search engine for if there's only a few websites to search? Why would I use a computer at all if it just serves me the same garbage as a TV?

Come on, throw your fucking weight around, jesus...

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#48

Post by rolodato »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #43

When I worked in the DoD contracting space there were rules handed down that outlines what browser(s) and version(s) you MUST use due to security concerns. It was always Firefox. This may be an insanely stupid idea, but, as sort of a thought experiment: what would the fallout be if, say, Mozilla changed their license on Firefox to disallow the usage of their browser by government representatives and associated contra…

In that case it would stop being free software, which is likely not something that Mozilla wants to do.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#49

Post by bogomipz »

a2decrow wrote: post #22
TJ-14 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American decisions can set precedents which other countries follow, and are often pushed by their trade policies. They also affect American IT companies, which are used by people all over the world. There's good reason for non-Americans to care about the American Internet.

If this forces non-US Americans to use US IT company services less, there are less angles the US government can use to spy on the rest of the world. Plus, data protection laws in other countries (especially European ones) are far more restrictive. I don't think there's any reason for us non-US-Americans to care at all about the US internet. Just like we don't care about pretty much anything else that's happening in t…

>"I don't think there's any reason for us non-US-Americans to care at all about the US internet. Just like we don't care about pretty much anything else that's happening in the US."

The "US internet" is the same internet that has allowed Google, Youtube, FB et al to flourish. Do you not use any those? Didn't all of those presuppose an open internet?

Can you really divorce Silicon Valley from you refer to as the "US internet"?

Heck even take a non-US tech company like Spotify. Do you think they would have been able to launch in the U.S 6 years ago if they had to pay ISPs not to de-prioritize their bits?

You say we don't really are about whats happening in the US, but presumably you do care what's happening in the US if you are interested in technology and read Hacker News where S.V. as well as other U.S tech company news features quite prominently.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#50

Post by tobltobs »

theprop wrote: post #24

While I think this is a terrible idea, there's not that much to worry about for us as ordinary internet users. There's not going to be a slow & fast lane, at least not anytime soon. ISPs want net neutrality banned so they can "extort" money from Google, Facebook, YouTube, Netflix (to some extent in place), Amazon, etc. They're going to artificially slow those big, rich sites down unless they pay up. Netflix already i…

> there's not that much to worry about for us as ordinary internet users

But rising costs and reinforcing monopolies do worry me.

Post reply on HN