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

91–100 of 223 posts

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#91

Post by Jtsummers »

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…

This is an example of the DoD's insane bureaucracy. I can absolutely see this being the requirement or recommendation passed on to contractors. But the USAF, in building their default images, uses IE only. Like I said, other browsers can be installed on request.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#92

Post by jbob2000 »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #55
jbob2000 wrote: post #46

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...

I think my viewpoint here is more devil's advocate because I'm not entire sure I believe it myself. But it seems like a possibility so I wanted to share: One thing to consider here is the large juggernauts in the tech industry would actually benefit to this type of legislation. Let's say Comcast adds a fee to get priority access. Google, Apple, Microsoft; pretty much all of the existing and large-enough companies wou…

All three of those companies survive off acquisitions. They rely on small independent companies taking a risk and doing the hard work, and when they find the diamond-in-the-rough, they get snapped up and brought under the corporate umbrella.

This legislation dries up the well. No small companies to buy = no progress.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#93

Post by killin_dan »

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…

Wow, turning the free market argument into a shilling strawman is the most innovative misunderstanding of economics I've ever seen!

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#94

Post by rayiner »

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.…

In DC, gigabit is $70 and 50/50 is $40. 2 gbps is $150 per month. No public utility, just a city government that's enlightened enough to permit competition between multiple providers in different pockets of the city.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#95

Post by rch »

vec wrote: post #79
orthecreedence wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

A similar effort was just killed in Boulder a couple of weeks ago, by Comcast and others.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#96

Post by VLM »

durandal1 wrote: post #12
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…

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.

The same political and market forces have an equally interesting effect on your cost of medical care and lifespan.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#97

Post by woah »

Jtsummers wrote: post #61
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…

A third option: Standard net, but everything end-to-end encrypted including what protocol is being used. If this information can't be discerned (easily), then priority cannot be given or taken away for any given data, only for certain data sources/destinations. If two computers (could be mobile devices, PC, server, doesn't matter) have an encrypted channel connecting them then anything could be transmitted across tha…

Net neutrality advocates are worried precisely about isps being able to discriminate by source or destination. Additionally, most traffic is already e2e encrypted. You just used the system you were proposing to post that comment.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#98

Post by mnm1 »

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…

Totally agree, but I think the problem is that in America, a monopoly or duopoly is considered a viable market. What we need are anti trust laws and prosecutions. I guess that doesn't bring as much money in as letting everyone get ripped off. But hey, "let the market decide," said no one with a brain.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#99

Post by coldcode »

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.…

WOn't last long until the cable companies force votes to make these illegal. It's been done in many cities/states already. Big money talks sadly.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#100

Post by rayiner »

VLM wrote: post #96
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.

The same political and market forces have an equally interesting effect on your cost of medical care and lifespan.

To the extent you're implying that the public/private distinction is relevant, I'm not sure I agree. Our infrastructure (trains, subways, roads) is also generally inferior even though its mostly publicly owned and operated. It costs our public entities five times as much to build a mile of subway as it costs Spain's public entities. We're just bad at doing things.
Post reply on HN