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

211–220 of 223 posts

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#211

Post by insulanus »

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.

In much of the Bay area, a stone's throw from Berkley, one of the original ARPANET nodes, your only choice is comcast 100 USD for 50mbits down/ 10 up. DSL operates as slowly as 3mbits on some older wires.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#212

Post by ianai »

dredmorbius wrote: post #202
ianai wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quite honestly, cable (solid 19th century proven tech), or satellites (low-orbiting swarms) would be far less problematic. You might be able to cross the Baring Strait with a LOS microwave relay -- there's a somewhat fanciful video which explores the possibility of driving from Tierra del Fuego to London. It's only really hard in a few areas, one of the more problematic being Guatemal. Conceptually, tunnelling or bri…

I meant at the last mile. I could see a mesh network first taking off in a city/neighborhood.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#213

Post by arcticbull »

girvo wrote: post #152
arcticbull wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar in SF with Monkeybrains -- for a one-time setup fee of $2500 about two years ago, I've been paying $35/mth for 600/600 microwave internet. They're also super pro-net neutrality. They even peer with SFMIX, a not-for-profit hipster internet exchange. The normal rate is $35/mth for 50/50.

What's latency like for microwave?

Currently, including some video conferencing on my laptop and a few others using the link too, I'm seeing 5-7ms ping times. It varies, but I think its fair to call it 'more than adequate'.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#214

Post by lilei2 »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #210
lilei2 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing is how net neutrality works, not how the Internet works. > First, bandwidth is limited. It's whatever download and upload you sign for. I said that I don't encourage bandwidth limits, not that it wasn't limited. The point is you usually sign a flat fee, you don't have universal access and then pay for traffic, more like in a country like Andorra. > Second, there is no such thin as "full speed a…

OK, I think see your point. Your scheme could be compatible with net neutrality with a few tweaks. The ISP could offer a separate channel for its special YouTube access the same way it offers separate channels for TV right now. Net neutrality is saved as long as the actual internet connection doesn't discriminate —being universally slow is perfectly allowed. But here's the thing: it's not transparent. The customer ha…

I don't like it either. What I'm saying is that this is something people who support net neutrality has to be able to refute.

Most consumers only want slow traffic to many websites and fast access to a few websites, but the are paying for a lot more. The example of "sites" might be a bit convoluted. We could as well make the differentiation based on geography, which is sort of already the case. Get 1 gigabit domestically and 10 mbit internationally. Now it up to people who want to host something to buy transit into the country. (This is sort of how it works in China, where a lot of people don't speak English anyway).

> Back to your scheme, the customer would not pay less. Costs have to be recouped somehow.

People who use the Internet less would presumably pay less and people who used the Internet more, including setting up servers, accessing services far away or anything else that require more infrastructure, would pay more. Which is sort of the case today with upstream bandwidth.

My overall point would be that the open Internet costs money and I'm not sure people can be convinced to keep it ones there's an alternative.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#215

Post by balthamael »

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…

From what I understand this issue is ridiculous is the States. I also live in Sweden and in my town 1Gb internet is included in my rent, using the city's network that had basically built fiber in the entire town. On top of that we have tons of ISPs to choose from, some the smaller ones focus on security and anonymity for example.

In contrast most places in the US have no competition at all, which is kinda ironic since the US is the birthplace of the Internet.

I have come to believe the there is no right or wrong absolute answer in regards to markets. Some need regulation, others don't. Internet does though, since it is already a vital part of the modern world. It's not just for porn or games like many old US politicians want to believe. The internet has to be protected from greed.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#216

Post by opo »

turc1656 wrote: post #209
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…

There is absolutely a reason to get rid of it. Net "neutrality", as currently implemented, attacks the peering arrangements that were put into the spotlight by Netflix's CEO, Reed Hastings. He famously said that ISP's were holding his members "hostage" until they paid up. Then the net neutrality rules changed that. But if you look at what Hastings wants you'll see why it's a bunch of crap. Peering agreements exist fo…

>...And he wants to send it for free.

No, I am pretty sure that Netflix doesn’t have free access to the Internet. (Just like the customers who request content from Netflix already paid their ISP for access to the Internet.)

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#217

Post by bogomipz »

bigbugbag wrote: post #190
bogomipz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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…

That's a total straw man.

It does't matter whether or not you think its ethical in its current incarnation. Youtube was a startup that became one of the most popular sites on the internet[1] and were acquired by Google. If they had to pay a gatekeeper to deliver those bits it might not have been a viable idea. The examples are not the point but rather the environment that those were produced in - i.e an environment of an open internet.

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

Maybe consider not createing straw man fallacies the next time you want to be critical of other people's comments.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#218

Post by dredmorbius »

ianai wrote: post #212
dredmorbius wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite honestly, cable (solid 19th century proven tech), or satellites (low-orbiting swarms) would be far less problematic. You might be able to cross the Baring Strait with a LOS microwave relay -- there's a somewhat fanciful video which explores the possibility of driving from Tierra del Fuego to London. It's only really hard in a few areas, one of the more problematic being Guatemal. Conceptually, tunnelling or bri…

I meant at the last mile. I could see a mesh network first taking off in a city/neighborhood.

Oh yes, that makes far more sense, sorry.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#219

Post by loup-vaillant »

lilei2 wrote: post #214
loup-vaillant wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, I think see your point. Your scheme could be compatible with net neutrality with a few tweaks. The ISP could offer a separate channel for its special YouTube access the same way it offers separate channels for TV right now. Net neutrality is saved as long as the actual internet connection doesn't discriminate —being universally slow is perfectly allowed. But here's the thing: it's not transparent. The customer ha…

I don't like it either. What I'm saying is that this is something people who support net neutrality has to be able to refute. Most consumers only want slow traffic to many websites and fast access to a few websites, but the are paying for a lot more. The example of "sites" might be a bit convoluted. We could as well make the differentiation based on geography, which is sort of already the case. Get 1 gigabit domestic…

The open Internet doesn't cost that much. The US happens to have monopoly prices, but here in France, a decent broadband (and even Fibre!) connection can be had for as little as 30€ per month, and the ISPs still make a profit as far as I know.

Few people can't afford that much. The real reason behind the net neutrality attacks (we have those in the EU all right) is profit maximization —which tends to be incompatible with any kind of common good in the first place.

> My overall point would be that the open Internet costs money and I'm not sure people can be convinced to keep it ones there's an alternative.

How about asking around? Especially to non-technical people, with and without an explanation about the implication of such a choice. They may surprise us.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#220

Post by dredmorbius »

dredmorbius wrote: post #203
dredmorbius wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Seeing if I can't find the citation at least. Not sure if it's turned up, though several contemporary accounts are interesting in retrospect. I'm wondering if Egypt has reconsidered its actions... http://www.worldcat.org/title/introducing-internet-to-egypt-... It might be John McConnell's Internetworking computer systems : interconnecting networks and systems (1988): http://www.worldcat.org/title/internetworking-comp…

Erm, "John Quarterman" on that last. And I'm almost positive that's it.
Post reply on HN