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

181–190 of 223 posts

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#181

Post by ajdlinux »

skrebbel wrote: post #177

It's probably a nitpick, but to me Mozilla has always been an organisation with a global mission. They make it seem like these decisions have a global impact, whereas in reality, if I'm not mistaken, this is about national policy for a single country. A country which is not mentioned by name at all in the entire article. I wish authors would step away from the "USA == world" idea a bit more often. I'd like to get an…

As an Australian I agree that Americans have a tendency to forget that the world exists beyond US borders, but the internet and the tech industry is still dominated by US companies. A less-free US internet absolutely has flow-on effects to the rest of the world when the rest of the world is dependent on US services.

Furthermore, the FCC is setting a very poor example for other regulators...

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#182

Post by supremesaboteur »

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…

> This battle is starting to get ridiculous. The "let the market decide" shills don't seem to understand there's no market

Why is there no market ? This is the kind of statement a shill would make

> Until then, let's all just agree the net neutrality is a common-good consumer protection

No, first you prove this is not a problem solvable by the market

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#183

Post by theprop »

sbov wrote: post #72
jefurii wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes exactly!

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#184

Post by pbowyer »

rhblake wrote: post #180
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.

We've progressed a bit since the days of the state telephone monopoly, eh? My mom in Stockholm has symmetric 100 Mb/s included in her rent. ~$12/month extra for 1 Gb/s (both ways!). In France I currently pay ~$40/month for 1 Gb/s down, 200 Mb/s up; a bit expensive, but it's getting better. Competition is cool.

Here in the UK, the free market capital of Europe, things haven't progressed since the days of state ownership.

In areas of private fibre 200 Mb/s down is available; otherwise you're lucky to get 75 Mb/s down and 35 Mb/s up. For ~$40/month unless you want bandwidth limits or an overloaded provider.

UK speeds & pricing: https://www.thinkbroadband.com/packages

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#185

Post by erikb »

Sadly this kind of battle can only be extended, not one. There will always be parties on both sides of the net-neutrality spectrum. But sadly one side needs to active millions of people for each battle and the other one can be confident with just a handful of politicians and two hands full of lawyers. Kind of obvious that you can't push people every two years to rally on the streets for the same topic, again and again.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#186

Post by ianai »

justifier wrote: post #172
Qwertystop wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You end up with bottlenecks. Packets on a mesh will try for the best route - if there's only one big cable across the ocean, everything that needs to cross takes it. Same situation we've got now, for oceans.

but how does that decentralise the system? a central body will need to maintain those lines and would be critical to the mesh

I'm thinking at some point the mesh network abstracts over the current internet. An abstraction that has crossed an entire continent can probably afford a non-crap service line.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#187

Post by ianai »

dredmorbius wrote: post #167
justifier wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does a mesh network cross oceans?

In stationwagons.... More seriously, back in the old days: ... the Usenet link to Australia was a daily batch of tapes flown by 747. High bandwidth, but long ping times. One of the first publicly-accessible network links between the US and Europe ... was a 9600 BAUD line. I'd cite both of these in more detail, but the book is buried somewhere in archives presently. A late 1980s / early 1990s (just prior to the dawn o…

I'm thinking solar powered (with batteries) WAP/repeater polls. That's definitely a capital outlay, still. But it might be more serviceable/financeable at a local level.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#188

Post by Qantourisc »

rhblake wrote: post #180
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.

We've progressed a bit since the days of the state telephone monopoly, eh? My mom in Stockholm has symmetric 100 Mb/s included in her rent. ~$12/month extra for 1 Gb/s (both ways!). In France I currently pay ~$40/month for 1 Gb/s down, 200 Mb/s up; a bit expensive, but it's getting better. Competition is cool.

You need to compare how much the technology to get this speed got cheaper VS how much the price has changed.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#189

Post by a2decrow »

falcolas wrote: post #69
a2decrow wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see how this affects IANA or root DNS servers in any way (not to mention that IANA can be replaced by a non-US entity if it really comes down to that). As for those companies, they'll work the same way as before outside the US internet. Regrettably, because the world would be a better place without them.

This was a direct response to the commennt "I don't think there's any reason for us non-US-Americans to care at all about the US internet." This change doesn't directly affect IANA, etc, but it will likely have knock-on effects which hurt everyone. "IANA can be replaced by a non-US entity" - This would, IMO, signal the end of the internet. "Look up www.google.com" "which one?"

> This would, IMO, signal the end of the internet. "Look up www.google.com" "which one?"

I'm not entirely sure if you know how DNS works.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#190

Post by bigbugbag »

bogomipz wrote: post #25
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 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." From the post: "The result: ISPs would be able to once again prioritize, block and throttle with impunity. This means fewer opportunities for startups and entrepreneurs, and a chilling effect on innovation, free expression and choice online" Do you not believe that the global internet h…

> Would Youtube have been possible under such a regime?

Assuming youtube is something desirable, let's not forget that it has been created for the sole purpose of selling to a giant company too big to be able to innovate and too slow to conquer users while youtube purposely used pirated content for its growth. Nowadays years after youtube has been bought to be the frontend UI of googlevideo.com youtube is considered to be an example of internet centralization, users tracking and spying, automated censorship, geolocalized blocking, among others criticisms.

Maybe consider a better suited example next time you want to take a stance for net neutrality, maybe peer-to-peer.

Post reply on HN