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

81–90 of 223 posts

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#81

Post by sp332 »

bogomipz wrote: post #77
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?

Unfortunately no. The FCC Chairman is appointed by the President. Ajit Pai was appointed by Trump.

The chairman has to be approved by the Senate after being nominated by the President. But the Senate can't remove the chairman afterward, while the President can.

Edit: the commissioners including the chairman have five-year terms and have to be re-approved by the Senate for each term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commiss...

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#82

Post by Jtsummers »

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.

For a time I lived in Wilson, NC which was like this. Time Warner did hate that city, eventually sponsoring legislation (via donations to legislators) to bar municipal broadband.

The jackasses had the gall to do this, when the primary reason the municipal broadband was established was because Time Warner refused to build out their network in Wilson. I suppose they thought there was no business for them there, until the city proved there was.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#83

Post by BinaryIdiot »

Jtsummers wrote: post #62
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…

None. DoD doesn't require Firefox, Chrome, or IE. But the base install is typically IE only with the option to install Firefox or Chrome upon request. If anything, it'd hurt Firefox's market share, but would have no impact on the government beyond not being able to use it. Especially these days with sites making themselves Chrome-first like the damned IE-only sites from 20 years ago.

> None. DoD doesn't require Firefox, Chrome, or IE. But the base install is typically IE only with the option to install Firefox or Chrome upon request.

Hmm, maybe depends on where you are in the crazy large DoD system. Our company was told the DNI office passed down requirements to use specific versions of Firefox and Firefox only for security purposes but IE was typically installed for when you were forced to use it.

But it's also been 3 years now since I've been out of that space.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#84

Post by cnnsucks »

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 5 commissioners of the FCC are appointed by the President of the United States. The commission may not have more than 3 members from the same political party. Effectively this means the FCC is dominated by the party of whomever is elected President.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#85

Post by falcolas »

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…

Those extortion payments will have to come from somewhere - ultimately it will probably be your pocketbook.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#86

Post by westbywest »

orthecreedence wrote: post #4

I want to say this first: I love net neutrality and I support it 100%. That said, I think this battle will go on forever until either - We have a decentralized network anybody can plug into without ISPs (mesh net) or - Cities build their own fiber infrastructure (or 4G towers for rural areas) and rent it out to companies. Cable/DSL become a thing of the past, and you connect via radio/public wifi/direct fiber. This b…

Access to useful wireless bands for mesh topologies is a hurdle. The unlicensed bands (e.g. wifi) are such precisely because they're generally junk w/r/t to propagation and atmospheric absorption. The licensed bands are unsurprisingly gated by license holders in a way to enforce exclusive access, which often does not correspond to full utilization of the available bandwidth. Especially so with license holders than just squat on their bands indefinitely.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#87

Post by [deleted] »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #83
Jtsummers wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None. DoD doesn't require Firefox, Chrome, or IE. But the base install is typically IE only with the option to install Firefox or Chrome upon request. If anything, it'd hurt Firefox's market share, but would have no impact on the government beyond not being able to use it. Especially these days with sites making themselves Chrome-first like the damned IE-only sites from 20 years ago.

> None. DoD doesn't require Firefox, Chrome, or IE. But the base install is typically IE only with the option to install Firefox or Chrome upon request. Hmm, maybe depends on where you are in the crazy large DoD system. Our company was told the DNI office passed down requirements to use specific versions of Firefox and Firefox only for security purposes but IE was typically installed for when you were forced to use i…

[deleted]

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#88

Post by bogomipz »

a2decrow wrote: post #64
bogomipz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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 i…

You do realize that not all technology originates in the US, yeah? The US isn't the center of the world. You don't have a monopoly on technology or IT and in fact, most of it wasn't even conceived in the US or by US inventors. You need to get off your high horse about "US-America being the greatest country in the world" because it's not. And to answer your question, no, I don't use Google, nor Youtube and especially…

I didn't say that all tech originate from the U.S, I even referenced a Swedish company in my comment.

I never said the U.S was the greatest country in the world or even implied that. You are projecting. You also seem to have a quite a chip on your shoulder. You have no idea what my nationality is.

That being said please tell me the country that has produced more successful tech companies than the US? Or what country has more available funding for tech startups and the appetite for risk? What country is that if it is not the US? I would like to know.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#89

Post by thesuitonym »

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?

Very likely. At least in Faceboook's corner, they might be looking to make a tidy sum on this, I mean, who would want to use the ISP that doesn't have Facebook?

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#90

Post by thesuitonym »

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.

What I've noticed in most cities is that picking your ISP is a choice between the crappy but affordable cable connection, and the ultra-expensive but reliable fiber connection.
Post reply on HN