Live data from Hacker News

Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

theverge.com

121–130 of 178 posts

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the person who makes the decision as to what ends up in the pipe (i.e. the end user, Netflix doesn't just spam people's routers) is the one who is already paying. Netflix isn't crowding anyone out (especially if they have a server within the ISP's perimeter), every bit of that bandwidth is requested by a user. Users crowding each other out is already handled by prioritizing based on how much they pay. Mass of foo…

Right. After reading yours and basically all other replies to my comment I understand that NN isn't supposed to prevent ISPs from limiting individual users' bandwidth or charging more per heavy usage. In those terms I think I can support NN and take back my comments.

You're convinced!

Maybe your name is an acronym-alias for Ajit and something, and we're all now in the clear :)

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#122
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you sell your company, you lose control of it; that is kind of the definition of 'selling'. If you maintain control, than you at most have 'an investor', not a new owner.

No, there can be contractual terms which allow for the original owners to regain control under certain contingencies

This is light grey. I'm dissapointed in you HN. This is absolutely correct.

One common version: Many sells come with some sort of earn-out. Meaning that the company has to perform at some level over some amount of time in order for the buyer to be on the hook for the full amount of the sell price (or some other bonus).

It is not uncommon to attach a buy-back clause to the earn-out. If you fail to hit the earn out, you have some ability to buy back the company and/or it's assets (there are many different versions). It's a win-win clause. If the company fails to perform under its new leadership the buying company has some hedge against it. It gives the seller a chance to effectively hedge at least some of the risk that they won't be able to fully earn-out the purchase price due to management issues at the new company.

I've been on the executive team for five company sales. Two of them had exactly this clause. Both during earlier stages. We never exercised them.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#123
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I apologize for calling your opinion vapid in my other post. Thank you for taking the time to articulate your ideas in this post. I too am a proponent for free markets, but I have to point out that the telecommunications industry could care less about free market principles. For the last hundred years telcos have consistently lobbied the federal government for regulations that lock out competition. They pretend regul…

Right, I understand that the telecommunications industry is not a free market in any sense. But imagine that you think NN is wrong (I no longer believe that), but since it is better than the current state of non-free-markets-plus-telcos-doing-anything-they-want, you defend NN. That just makes things worse, since it shifts the focus out of the real underlying problem (markets aren't free) and tells everybody the probl…

First, thank you for stepping up the level of discourse.

> Since imposing NN will not solve all the problems, and may as well create some new problems, the next time a problem appears the State will be prompted to introduce a new regulation, and we'll be each time farther from the free markets. Regulation brings regulation.

You bring up a good point. It too bothers me that we've resorted to NN. We shouldn't have too, and we wouldn't if we didn't already have a nearly 100 year history of corporate socialism in the telco industry, where for nearly 50 of those years, the federal government literally picked one winner.

The problem is this: Money is really good at influencing politics and policy. You claim regulation brings more regulation. That's not untrue, but I suspect money in politics creates more regulation because nothing protects a market from competition than regulatory capture. Not only that, it cultivates entire industries that specialize in sucking on the government teat and rent-seeking politicians who make sure they contribute to their campaigns.

Our extremely polarized voting base (I don't blame the politicians) is current incapable of sending a common coherent message to their representatives based on common American values because they can't agree on a single fucking thing. These polarized idiots are simply too emotionally immature to realize they're being emotionally manipulated. Not only that, they're too clueless to tell their politicians that they want a telecommunications industry that's based on free-market principles because they're too busy parroting talking points rather than understanding how they're being played an manipulated by special interests.

Because there's not one fucking thing these right-wing and left-wing assholes can agree on, I'm not convinced we'll ever have a coherent telecommunications policy, let alone a solution to our growing problem of the influence of money in politics.

NN isn't ideal, but it's a lot better giving the telcos everything and asking for nothing in return. It will only embolden them to come back and ask for more. They literally have a history of asking for federal dollars to build next generation networks and then not following through on their promises. They are trolls who live under bridges. Don't empower them. Provide incentives for them to be competitive and opportunities for new companies to challenge them.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#124
post #87
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not quite the same though. It would be more like if the store said you could pay $50 to enter and fill a cart with whatever you want, but you can use as many other carts as you want but only for their store brand items. Then the local government comes in and says that they are the only store allowed in town. Now, is it fair to General Mills that they have to compete with the store brand cereal when the store bra…

My thoughts are that the proper solution would be to outlaw regional monopolies, and that a store is entitled to whatever pricing model it sees fit.

That would be ideal. Then competion would sort it out.

But the FCC doesn't have that authority and it's a nonstarter in congress. So the stop gap is to force the government granted monopolies to play nice as a condition of their monopoly status.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#125
post #87
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not quite the same though. It would be more like if the store said you could pay $50 to enter and fill a cart with whatever you want, but you can use as many other carts as you want but only for their store brand items. Then the local government comes in and says that they are the only store allowed in town. Now, is it fair to General Mills that they have to compete with the store brand cereal when the store bra…

My thoughts are that the proper solution would be to outlaw regional monopolies, and that a store is entitled to whatever pricing model it sees fit.

The problem with that is that the current internet architecture inherently favors monopolies.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#126
post #122
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there can be contractual terms which allow for the original owners to regain control under certain contingencies

This is light grey. I'm dissapointed in you HN. This is absolutely correct. One common version: Many sells come with some sort of earn-out. Meaning that the company has to perform at some level over some amount of time in order for the buyer to be on the hook for the full amount of the sell price (or some other bonus). It is not uncommon to attach a buy-back clause to the earn-out. If you fail to hit the earn out, yo…

another comment by oh_sigh downvoted out of disagreement with facts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14597026

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#127
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying yahoo was a very dumb move for VZ unless they just want hold assets OR completely overhaul yahoo. Yahoo has been a losing brand since circa 2000. Soon as yahoo took over tumblr it started to suck more. source : I work on other peoples tumblrs site all the time

AOL does a lot of advertising. Yahoo has a ton of eyeballs. Verizon has data. That already is a good match for all three. Yahoo is still close to a top 5 site. Definitely top 10. Yahoo also owns some advertising infrastructure like Brightroll and Flurry. I have experience in Brightroll myself. It's not that rare to run across people spending close to $100K a week on Brightroll. It wasn't a bad move at all. They were…

If Verizon can execute, it could even be bigger, given that they also have the FCC in pocket, and they have both mobile carrier data and snooped home internet data.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe 1:100 of those (being incredibly generous) are actually unique posts and not someone else reposting something from someone else, so maybe it's not such a hard task...

It's fairly common for commentary to be added to a reblog via tags rather than after the quoted post, so even reblogs without commentary may need saving.

This assumes there is commentary on Tumblr worth saving.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#129
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They currently have 150B posts ( https://www.tumblr.com/about ) so I expect that to be quite challenging. If you seriously make any progress though, it'd be cool to see.

Step 1: Hack into a supercomputing center with at least 1Gbps line. Step 2: Massively-parallel downloading of all the sites using clustered nodes, compression of it, and resulting data stored into high-performance, clustered filesystem. Step 3: Move it off of there when traffic is low or overnight if system doesn't go offline overnight.

Step 0: Acquire at least ~1PB of storage to store all the data.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#130
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix pays it's bills like everyone else. Net Neutrality means that if you were to start a compelling competitor to Netflix, as long as your technology was sound enough, and you could keep up with the bandwidth bills, you would be able to offer the service to your customers without any subjective political negotiation with ISPs and entrenched market leaders.

This isn't a very good argument, since Comcast (or whoever) wants to charge Netflix more --a challenger wouldn't have to pay the Netflix premium. Maybe in some hypothetical scenario ISPs would charge incumbents less, but the real-world scenario is the opposite.

The thing is, Netflix is the analogous Netflix competitor, since Comcast owns competitors to Netflix, which it could deliberately provide an advantage to if NN were removed.
Post reply on HN