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

71–80 of 223 posts

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#71

Post by nickthemagicman »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #2

"this decision leads to an internet that benefits Internet Service Providers" I would correct this to: "this decision leads to an American internet that benefits Internet Service Providers" The FCC can really only screw up the Internet for Americans. If you're an Internet user not in North America there's very little reason for you to care about the decision the FCC made today.

It will affect you almost immediately when they stop allowing traffic that competes with their voice arms.

Facetime, Messenger, Skype, all going to get brutalized.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#72

Post by sbov »

jefurii wrote: post #54
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…

What about nonprofit web sites that can't afford to pay the extortion fees?

I think the idea is that fast lane will be default, and the slow lane will be for huge companies that refuse to pay a fee. Since the BigCos can afford to pay, it results in no ire from customers and extra, easy profits for the ISPs.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#75

Post by orthecreedence »

rocky1138 wrote: post #73

Do the people in the USA elect the leader of the FCC? If so, can't they elect someone better? If not, why not?

The FCC is "ruled" by five people: two democrats, two republicans, and a chair. The president appoints the chair of the FCC and at any given point, there have to be at least two members of each of the two political parties on the FCC.

The the position(s) in the FCC are not elected, except indirectly by who you vote for as president.

(Please someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#76

Post by natemeier »

nulagrithom wrote: post #44
mulletbum wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Great to see that these projects are popping up all over --- I'm also in a town in the US with municipal fiber. I get bidirectional gigabit for $50/month (early adopter --- the normal rate is $100/month). Our ISP is also vocally pro-net neutrality.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#78

Post by sp332 »

ianai wrote: post #57
guelo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lag time, and probably bandwidth, on a mesh, especially a wifi one, makes it unacceptable for many uses.

That sounds like an implementation-bound constraint. Many technologies start out unacceptable for certain uses and mature to competency.

Adding lots of hops is going to slow down the connection. That's a limitation of the speed of light.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#79

Post by vec »

orthecreedence wrote: post #66
nulagrithom wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Comcast HATES this one US city! (Sorry, had to) What area do you live in? I've heard of cities trying to do things like this and ISPs clamping down and suing the city to stop any sort of public infrastructure. I'd be interested to read about if/how the people in your area had to deal with this.

Not the OP, but I'm guessing they live up the road from me in Longmont, CO.

Comcast does indeed hate this, and spent roughly $300k on questionably ethical political ads[1] in a city with less than 100k residents.

[1] https://muninetworks.org/content/longmont-votes-again-comcas...

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#80

Post by staltz »

guelo wrote: post #42

Google and Facebook's silence on net neutrality is deafening. It makes no sense. Are they thinking they'll be able to pay for access to the customers that their competitors won't be able to afford?

Good point, but then again, access to Facebook is probably going to be the most demanded by ISP customers, and therefore FB company has little to worry.

Google, on the other, as a search engine company, may appear to depend on the open web, but they don't necessarily need to be an internet company. They are a "world information" company, and they can achieve that by moving content to Google servers (like they do with AMP), or simply providing intelligent content through their AI who is learning from content on the open web. I won't be surprised if/when Google stops being a de facto internet company and becomes an information company.

Post reply on HN