Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 469 posts

Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet

#281

Post by stordoff »

ambicapter wrote: post #6

This has been the weakest day of action I could imagine. I thought sites were going to be throttled. Turns out its just some color changes and, oh, reddit has a fancy "slow-loading" gif for their website name. A real wake-up call!

I didn't even realise it was today until part way through reading this page of comments.

Hacker News -> Noticed the black/grey bar, but assumed it was a variant of the "someone notable has died" black bar so didn't pay it much attention.

Reddit -> Didn't even see the altered logo until probably the tenth page I was on, and just though "Oh, the logo didn't load in all the way, weird" (by the time it gets to the "Bandwidth exceeded" message it's probably off the page, and even that's hardly a call to (user) action).

Google/Twitter/Facebook -> Didn't notice anything.

Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet

#282

Post by bubblethink »

thinkingemote wrote: post #242

Forgive me as a European but are there companies who oppose net neutrality? As in are there HN readers who work for them? If so, who are they and what are their reasons? Is the issue like same sex marriage where the only opposition is so laughably out of date or are there nuances?

One reason is that a lot of these tech companies make a bulk of their money from selling content, which is in large part dependent on production houses that are run by cable companies anyway. So on the one hand Netflix will make a show of supporting net neutrality, but will discriminate among different internet users (vpn users), by denying them access.

Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet

#283

Post by wwweston »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #212
Bakary wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, the US President holds the power to end life on Earth should he so desire. To the best of my knowledge, there is no safeguard in place that could prevent such a course of action if it were attempted. Even Comcast's power seems rather pitiful in comparison.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no safeguard in place that could prevent such a course of action if it were attempted I can tell you for certain that there are dozens of safeguards. That scenario not only isn't possible, it's not plausible. Yes the President has the "codes" but those codes don't launch the missiles [1]. The scenario described is one in which there are literally nuclear warheads on a ballistic t…

The article you're citing appears to support the point it seems like you're trying to contradict -- it describes a system where the president is given explicit authority at every stage. There are opportunities for others to dissuade him, but he has every freedom to disregard them, and they have absolutely nothing in the way of legal power to stop him.

The only check currently seems to be people disobeying his orders, and even that is accounted for to some extent (see "mutiny is unlikely" in the article you cited).

It remains possible that ranking members of the executive branch and military might cooperate to make sure the president is isolated and unable to execute the protocol, and perhaps even conceivable (if unlikely) that enough of the military would refuse to participate. But that's the only real check, and it extralegal rather than any part of the system.

If you've ever been suspicious of "the deep state", think about that for a minute here, because it's really just another catchy term for the one of a half-handful of checks on the power under discussion here.

> I think the trope stays around because people, despite what they say publicly, like the idea of an emperor style president with supreme power.

I suspect that people really want to believe the system works, it can't be that messed up, someone else thought of this, some one else is paying attention, and they want things to be better, not worse, and they will take care of it for you.

Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet

#284

Post by mr_spothawk »

komali2 wrote: post #271
mr_spothawk wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I love this idea because I read too much cyberpunk "go on..." > What if Musk's first ship to Mars had a hidden Railgun on it? "oh god... don't stop!" > ... the secret passcode of another person ... brilliant. yeah... we (in the US) gave AI/meta-cognative-entities/"corporations" a type of inalienable right with the Citizens United ruling. and now the gov't is going to find out what happens when those entities start…

>we (in the US) gave AI/meta-cognative-entities/"corporations" a type of inalienable right with the Citizens United ruling Holy shit I hadn't even considered this, this is awesome . New story idea.

In describing "Metacognates" to friends I often use the example of FedEx as a weird type of animal which eats gasoline and shits boxes on doorsteps.

Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet

#285

Post by DaemonKrog »

mabbo wrote: post #19

If Google were actually serious about Net Neutrality, they would use their insane market power to protect it. How? Well, a simple statement saying "any ISP who abuses net neutrality will have their customers cut off from Google products". No Google search, no YouTube, no Gmail. Have those requests instead redirect to a website telling the customer what their ISP is doing, why Google won't work with them, and how to c…

So, abuse net neutrality to punish customers of ISPs who abuse net neutrality.

Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet

#286

Post by EdSharkey »

thehardsphere wrote: post #172
lerpa wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISPs have a lot to win with keeping their monopolies as it is. Given the amount of alarmism it actually seems to me there is heavy propaganda advocating for the status quo, for some reason, perhaps they want further regulations that can be done more easily through net neutrality. Not sure.

Once you establish that the FCC can regulate the internet, you can do all kinds of very opaque regulation that is difficult to change (e.g. other guy needs to control White House and Congress or sue the government and win). Heavier regulations usually favor established players who can engage in regulatory capture, to shape the new rules to prevent future competition from smaller companies and firms that don't even ex…

Your comments boil down to "distrust of government/more crony capitalism" message for me.

I agree, if that is where your heart is at. U.S. government is very dysfunctional. Corporations buy up representatives, regulatory agencies are politicized and made into paper tigers or weapons to attack enemies with, etc.

I don't expect that to change in the U.S., and in fact I expect deregulation and a non-neutral net real soon. Then, we'll begin the slow slide into the nightmare scenario where ISP's can extract more rents from both websites and users. Extorting fees from websites for accessing the fast lane to the users will be the favorite way of simultaneously increasing profits and wounding competing media companies that don't control their own last mile fiefdoms.

When the quality of service dips too low and the costs rise too high, I believe the result will be a populist wave of anger sweeping over these companies. They will be broken up into smaller companies based on function, municipal ISP's will get established to handle the last mile, and there will be harsh regulations put on what ISP's can legally do with data flowing over their pipes.

My frustration with the net neutrality folks (probably similar to yours) is their insistence that we "REGULATE IT" where no specifics are given and is not really a plan, leaving things open to mischief. The devil in the details here is establishing what is reasonable and fair for an ISP to do -- and we then fairness hug the ISP's to death.

Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet

#287

Post by voxic11 »

komali2 wrote: post #269
willstrafach wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not allowed to override POTUS.

Correction: Overriding POTUS is illegal and has consequences that do not include the planet being nuked. They absolutely have the real authority (ability) to refuse the order, and then the real authority to prevent the nuke from being launched (by eating their key, shooting anybody else that comes into the room, shooting the key/console, etc).

Though as I understand it each missile site has its own control and 2 man system. Even if only 1 out of 10 obeyed their orders and launched it would likely be the end of mankind or at least civilization as we recognize it.

Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet

#288

Post by JumpCrisscross »

komali2 wrote: post #274
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone would bother with guns. Order ISPs switch off access to Google's servers and CDNs, order power regulators cut off their power, freeze their bank accounts (as well as those of the executive, employees and vendors) and declare them insurrectionists. If Google truly tried to act with insurrectionist intent, I'd expect (and want) our government to react forcefully.

I'm just playing along with the fiction at this point, so here's my response: 1. Order ISPS to switch off access to Google's servers and CDNs. Most internet traffic stops working as any website using a google CDN breaks, all analytics stops working, internet advertising breaks almost entirely, the internet is suddenly a less profitable and very scary, mostly unusable place. Google releases as its death-throes the fac…

> Order ISPS to switch off access to Google's servers and CDNs. Most internet traffic stops working as any website using a google CDN breaks, all analytics stops working, internet advertising breaks almost entirely, the internet is suddenly a less profitable and very scary, mostly unusable place

The scenario is insurrection. Communications going down while people are arrested is perfectly acceptable.

> Google goes the way of Pablo Escobar and talks directly to bank VPs

Bank VPs have no control over dollar clearing and settlement. In any case, violating an OFAC freeze is automatic jail time for lots of people. Nobody messes around with this.

Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet

#289

Post by mr_spothawk »

djsumdog wrote: post #83
jerf wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to point out that even if you disagree with this video that hearing it straight from the source is valuable. If you want to convince Ajit Pai that he's wrong, knowing what his current (public) opinion truly is (rather than just someone's strawman) makes it way easier.

Well, if he really believes it. I high doubt most people in these positions believe a fraction of what they say. They're being backed by major telecom firms to promote a narrative.

The video does not support the narrative that Ajit doesn't know/believe what he's talking about.

Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet

#290

Post by monocasa »

cheald wrote: post #241
nickysielicki wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neutrality regulations have jack-all to do with peering mutual maintenance agreements. Can you please write more about this, or provide some links where I can learn more? I don't feel I have an understanding of how peering would change under proposed net neutrality rules. Particularly, I am curious about the claim that "[Comcast was not throttling Netflix traffic]". Under the proposed FCC rules, would it be claimed…

> I don't feel I have an understanding of how peering would change under proposed net neutrality rules. tl;dr: I don't think the neutrality end of the rules would change peering at all, and peering disputes are never grounded in the kinds of things that neutrality seeks to protect. Title II classification permits the FCC to arbitrate peering disputes, which is a desirable side effect for people who just want to watch…

> Comcast claimed that the agreement's settlement-free status depended on maintenance of a roughly equal exchange ratio - traffic in from Cogent to Comcast should be appropriately balanced with traffic out from Comcast over Cogent.

Eh, Comcast was being extremely disingenuous, trying to act like a Tier 1 ISP.

For Tier 1s like Cogent, they expect to more or less equally peer. Ie. BGP routes and the physical routers themselves should be setup so that a main, backbone style ISP would receive about as many bytes on an individual connection as they transmit. This makes sense for backbone ISPs, or else they end up in the situation where an ISP is essentially using another ISP's infrastructure to route their own customer's traffic in an unfair way.

Comcast was trying to make the argument that Netflix was unduly routing traffic unto Comcast's network... but all of that traffic were packets that had been specifically requested by Comcast customers. It's not Cogent's fault that Comcast's customers have asymmetric traffic patterns.

Post reply on HN