31–40 of 136 posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's odd to see people banding together to defend Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc. Although the companies on the other side are obviously scum as well.
I don't see what this fuss is all about. If Facebook wants to offer cheaper Internet with their services prioritized, why not? Plus Internet is far from being neutral right now. Emails got deliver depending on your server IPs. CDNs already pay to be hosted by ISPs for a fast lane. Torrents don't reach the full capacity of your bandwidth. Etc. The case against government regulations for the Internet is easy to make: E…
Because the fear is that the internet will become like TV: you can't buy access to 'TV', despite the fact there's no technical limitation. You have to buy packages, from different providers in order to get what you want. You have to sign up to hefty subscription packages with loads of bundled shite just to watch 7 hours of Game of Thrones. Currently you buy access to the internet, and that's all internet , at equal p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an interesting perspective. Do you not think in times of war greater access to information is a great advantage of the internet? I'm curious as to why you would think that in wartime restricting information might be a good thing (other than persisting the propagation of propaganda!)
He doesn't think that; he thinks that Net neutrality is the first step on the road to government censorship of the Internet. I'm not sure by what mechanism.
Net Neutrality laws simply make it easier for govt to use this exploit. A lot of HN audience is sympathetic to Canada or UK style restrictions on News channels, where govt is the final arbiter of whether a news channel is spreading lies or not. In America, the people are allowed to do that, and sure people paid a lot of money to listen to lies by NYT that Hillary was on her way to White House (I have even defended NYT's 2016 coverage to my pissed off liberal friends who wanted to cancel their subscription after the elections), but it's their choice. We can't allow govt to control media in the name of 'fairness'.
Wouldn't getting rid of net neutrality actually be good for startups and smaller companies? People are effectively subsidizing the internet giants right now, if telecoms charged extra for them people would move on to different services? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's odd to see people banding together to defend Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc. Although the companies on the other side are obviously scum as wel…
Why would they demand only the giants to pay? They have zero interest fostering competition against their own products.
Wouldn't getting rid of net neutrality actually be good for startups and smaller companies? People are effectively subsidizing the internet giants right now, if telecoms charged extra for them people would move on to different services? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's odd to see people banding together to defend Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc. Although the companies on the other side are obviously scum as wel…
are google's search results neutral?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They listen to their base. They can't afford to lose the base. It's the outreach to moderates that only happens during campaigns. For what it's worth, they aren't actually cutting health care. There's a reason they can't get a repeal through even though they control both houses of congress and have a rubber stamp waiting in the white house.
To be fair, it's their own healthcare plan. The Republican party held Congress during Obama's administration.
Is there any hope that some new ISP gets created that does follow net neutrality? What's likely to happen to an ISP that doesn't play the fast/slow lane approach?
Non-neutral internet bandwidth packages will only be offered if there is profit to be made. Cell phone companies didn't give us free long distance out of the kindness of their heart - it was simply too expensive to administer the billing. So, the trick is to make non-neutral packages very expensive to maintain or support for the ISP's. How? By making it too hard for them to implement in a way that isn't easily subver…
I don't see what this fuss is all about. If Facebook wants to offer cheaper Internet with their services prioritized, why not? Plus Internet is far from being neutral right now. Emails got deliver depending on your server IPs. CDNs already pay to be hosted by ISPs for a fast lane. Torrents don't reach the full capacity of your bandwidth. Etc. The case against government regulations for the Internet is easy to make: E…
I don't see what this fuss is all about. If Facebook wants to offer cheaper Internet with their services prioritized, why not? Plus Internet is far from being neutral right now. Emails got deliver depending on your server IPs. CDNs already pay to be hosted by ISPs for a fast lane. Torrents don't reach the full capacity of your bandwidth. Etc. The case against government regulations for the Internet is easy to make: E…
The law of physics will gently back off and new ISPs will be able to install infrastructure on top of the existing one?
Existing ISPs have a de facto monopoly, because there isn't unlimited space to install backbones. Given that it is impossible to change that and have a free market, the next best thing is to regulate their market and forbid them from distorting the one built on top of it.
> cheaper services for the end consumers
Don't be naive: consumers will pay the same price for a shit-tier internet, those who can afford it will pay a premium for "regular" internet.