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

101–110 of 223 posts

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#101

Post by weberc2 »

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…

> Until then, let's all just agree the net neutrality is a common-good consumer protection, and there's absolutely no reason, at all, to get rid of it until we either have a viable marketplace or we don't need ISPs..

On the other hand, we likely won't ever get either until it becomes sufficiently inconvenient for a huge swath of the first world. Necessity being the mother of invention and whatnot.

Personally, I would prefer that the internet is governed by the tech it's built on and not governments, and I can live with hypothetically throttled Netflix (oh the humanity!) in the interim. I'm sure my opinion won't be popular.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#102

Post by tangent128 »

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.

If it succeeds in America, ISPs in other countries will try to replicate the policy.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#103

Post by tangent128 »

chpmrc wrote: post #13
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.

Well not in the EU https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-internet-... .

That law can be repealed if Europeans aren't vigilant; nothing makes the EU naturally immune to right-wing, pro-corporate swings.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#104

Post by Jtsummers »

woah wrote: post #97
Jtsummers wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree. But source/destination isn't the only way that ISPs discriminate. They can also discriminate based on the type/protocol of content (when revealed). See the way they used traffic shaping with bittorrent, what was that 8 years ago now? That was communication between peers, potentially within the same ISP.

e2e encryption mitigates the impact ISPs can have when looking at the protocol/contents. But there is still work to be done to prevent them (without regulation) from having an impact based on source/destination without going the TOR (or similar) route.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#105

Post by MichaelApproved »

Kholo wrote: post #60
MichaelApproved wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP but I live in NYC and have 200mb down and 20mb up for $70/month. 200mb down isn't so important. Even with a family of 5 streaming, 100mb would be plenty of bandwidth. For me, the more important part of the connection is the upstream. the larger that number is, the more I can move towards 100% real-time offsite backup. That's important in case of fire, theft or other catastrophic issue happening.

For a family of 5 that sounds like a pretty good deal.

Sure but I'd rather have Verizon FIOS, if my building had it. 50mb up/down pipe. 50mb down is still plenty but I'd love to get my hands on the 50mb upstream connection.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#106

Post by tetrep »

jbob2000 wrote: post #92
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> No small companies to buy = no progress.

Which is perfectly fine for incumbents.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#107

Post by newsat13 »

The optimist in me sees this as a good things. Maybe Google will bring back it's Fiber program. Maybe the heavy weights of IT industry will start a conglomerated ISP? Maybe new startups will appear that provider an unregulated internet. In the long run, the only solution that is going to work is to have proper competition to the likes of comcast.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#108

Post by jbuhl »

rch wrote: post #95
vec wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What were the Comcast shills' arguments? It seems like a local politician could run on internet as a utility and win if publicized correctly.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#109

Post by lilei »

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.…

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

It's not really like a utility though. A utility usually has a low fee and charge per use. Not that I encourage data or bandwidth limits, but there's a difference. Consider you could either get gigabit for $90 or you could get a fixed speed or data (say 10 mbit or 100gb) for $30 but full speed access to Netflix, YouTube, Windows Update etc. is included. How many people would pay $60 extra for unlimited access to the rest of the Internet?

I think it's a fair question to ask why consumers are paying for both installation, the bandwidth itself and the services they access (in cash or ad revenue) while everyone else is making money.

Edit: Not sure what the point of downvotes is. If you can't answer a basic argument like this you can't expect your views to be taken seriously. But hey, instead of actually doing something relevant let's talk about which Internet connection we all have.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#110

Post by wvenable »

jbob2000 wrote: post #92
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In this environment, they wouldn't need acquisitions. Progress isn't necessary for profit.
Post reply on HN