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

Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 136 posts

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#51

Post by gremlinsinc »

crispyambulance wrote: post #5

Net neutrality is dying because no one has been able to make a compelling case for it that can be understood by constituents, let alone politicians. There is one thing that just enough politicians do understand, however, and that's money. In their pockets. From ghouls who will profit handsomely when online access in the USA becomes effectively equivalent to shitty cable-tv service.

Here's a compelling case: -- All big sites ban users from Comcast, Verizon, ATT every monday, explaining to them what Net Neutrality is, and that if they don't want to pay for special 'access' to sites like google/facebook etc the same way they have to pay for HBO, then they better contact their congressmen or their internet service provider and complain..

Something like: "I'm sorry your provider Comcast is against Net Neutrality, as a sign of protest you will be unable to access our content on Mondays until Net Neutrality is reinstated - here are some numbers where you can contact your congressman, senators, and comcast directly to complain.

Do that --and you'll have comcast/att/verizon BEGGING to get net neutrality brought back.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#52

Post by larrydag »

hnal943 wrote: post #43
larrydag wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm for free markets and competition but I have to agree with you here. Like the US interstate road system the fixed line broadband, especially the big fiber pipes, probably needs to be taken over by a quasi-federal program similar to the Post Office. There seems to be too much of a monopoly or oligarchy collusion taken place. Broadband is not improving with competition currently.

This is the first time I've seen someone hold up the Post Office as model that should be followed for anything. What makes you think that this model would be less monopolistic than the one we have today?

I wouldn't call it an ideal model. It was used before for similar purposes of transporting data between long distances. You could argue whether it served its purpose or not. For its time the USPS did a good job of delivering on its intended objective until the free market created new and innovative ways to make it obsolete (email, Fed Ex, UPS, Paypal, etc.)

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#53

Post by gremlinsinc »

cribbles wrote: post #46
metalliqaz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, isn't it, that a free and neutral Internet is one of the key technologies that allowed the acerbic alt-right movement to bubble up from the fringes, to become grassroots, and then mainstream, finally to put Trump in office. Then, his team gleefully work to destroy it. I suppose they think that greedy, unfair measures that currently benefit themselves will never be handed to their opponents. That's a lesson the…

The alt-right is a small fringe movement with outsized presence in election post-mortems due to their visibility on digital platforms used by journalists and bloggers. Trump voters were (mostly) Romney voters.[1] Clinton lost by failing to galvanize voters who turned out for Obama in prior elections[2] and neglecting to campaign in Rustbelt states.[3] [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trump..…

Clinton lost because the DNC cheated to get her where she was in the first place... She was supposed to be the candidate that could never lose, and Bernie Or Bust isn't a real thing... Sure as heck was, I know Bernie supporters who voted Trump out of spite (mostly the independents) -- I wrote Bernie in personally, because I'd rather see the shit storm that is Trump -- piss people off so badly and ruin the entire reputation of the Republican party that progressive politics will come back in full force in 4 years. Than see clinton in office starting more wars we don't need and doing more regime change and taking money from special interests.

There's a real hatred for the elite class right now in America, some idiots thought Trump was that answer but he IS an elite. Bernie was the answer but the DNC thought they could quash him, now he's the most popular member of congress - and more progressives are running and winning than ever before.

2020 will be interesting to see if he runs again, if he does he'll probably be the next president. Even Nate Silver has said that Bernie is currently the front-runner for 2020 much as Clinton was in 2013.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#54

Post by graphitezepp »

emodendroket wrote: post #29
metalliqaz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sufficient competition in the market would be enough. Unfortunately, the government has allowed total monopoly on fixed line broadband. They've done it in two ways: first through exclusivity contracts with companies such as Verizon, ATT, Cox, and Comcast. They give fat payments in the form of cash, tax breaks, and local monopolies in exchange for the companies to build out infrastructure. Second, they have allowed co…

I don't think it's realistic to expect free-market competitors to build out massive infrastructure to compete with each other. They wouldn't even serve large swathes of the country at all if they didn't have to.

As someone who trends towards espousing free-market virtues but I have long sense accepted that do to the practical physical concerns of laying so much wire the only 'good' workable situation for running the internet is a centralized, probably gov anyone else is a rent seeker, body with strong net neutrality and privacy policy. But that doesn't seem like it's gonna happen.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#55

Post by uncletammy »

metalliqaz wrote: post #6
honestoHeminway wrote: post #4

The mistake was for the internet to grow on the ISPs infrastructure in the first place. Now they will murder anything new by slowing it to a crawl. So to succeed, on must have superior compression- and/or a alternative infrastructure. Or- one could try to hijack the fastlanes.

Sufficient competition in the market would be enough. Unfortunately, the government has allowed total monopoly on fixed line broadband. They've done it in two ways: first through exclusivity contracts with companies such as Verizon, ATT, Cox, and Comcast. They give fat payments in the form of cash, tax breaks, and local monopolies in exchange for the companies to build out infrastructure. Second, they have allowed co…

I also expect new infrastructure to be the most likely solution. I wouldn't expect it to be 4G/5G mobile service though.

I always thought that the next infrastructure would be a series of wireless mesh networks. They are extremely censorship resistant and can operate on unlicensed frequencies which makes them resistant to centralized control.

I've heard about projects like https://nycmesh.net and http://guifi.net that have sprung up even while the internet was fairly neutral. That leaves me hopeful that this type of project will quickly replace wired infrastructure if it quickly becomes needed.

I'm nowhere close to an expert in this field so I would love to be corrected if I'm wrong about any of that. I would also love someone more informed than myself to talk about the current state of wireless mesh and/or 4G/5G mobile.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#56

Post by syshum »

avryhof wrote: post #7
crispyambulance wrote: post #5

Net neutrality is dying because no one has been able to make a compelling case for it that can be understood by constituents, let alone politicians. There is one thing that just enough politicians do understand, however, and that's money. In their pockets. From ghouls who will profit handsomely when online access in the USA becomes effectively equivalent to shitty cable-tv service.

I can see that. Website packages, just like channel packages on cable. - You can get all the shopping sites, and your ISP's streaming service in the base package. - Third-party Music Sites with Music Extra. - Third-party Video Sites with Video Extra. Then there is the Several speed levels of the Unlimited plan starting at just $999/month. Personal blogs, websites and Open Source project sites will be restricted to th…

No what you are going to see is Zero Rating with extreme Caps

"Want 4K Content, Use HULU and it will not count toward your 1TB limit"

"Want unlimited music, Our new Xfinity Music Service is now allows you to enjoy all the music you want with out worry about going over your data cap"

Then ofcourse will be fast lanes

"Tired of your 4K movie buffering, Try the new Xfintiy On Demand, Guaranteed not to buffer"

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#57

Post by crispyambulance »

syshum wrote: post #48
crispyambulance wrote: post #5

Net neutrality is dying because no one has been able to make a compelling case for it that can be understood by constituents, let alone politicians. There is one thing that just enough politicians do understand, however, and that's money. In their pockets. From ghouls who will profit handsomely when online access in the USA becomes effectively equivalent to shitty cable-tv service.

>Net neutrality is dying because no one has been able to make a compelling case for it that can be understood by constituents, I disagree, I think the case can be easily made but it is being drowned out by the ISP's and their supporters with a MASSIVE wave of disinformation, and false information. I have spent the majority of my time in discussions not attempting to explain why Title II is needed, but simply attempti…

While I agree that there is a disinformation campaign going on, I don't think its "massive".

They got a stooge FCC commissioner, they have some well-paid lobbyists and they are lining the pockets of politicos in various ways to get what they want. Every once in a while some odious talking-head will say something against net-neutrality on AM radio or Fox news. That's a pretty low-key campaign if you ask me.

The fact is not enough regular people care about this issue, not enough are informed about what it really means. That's why they're winning.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#58

Post by mcntsh »

splintercell wrote: post #21
fredley wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Because the fear is that the internet will become like TV But I would rather take that than Internet becoming like TV, where govt can pass 'fairness doctrine' and other stuff, or restrict it significantly during war time. I'd rather trust economic incentives to keep Internet free than political incentives. If people are willing to pay for full coverage of the War, then even though govt is pressuring ISPs, it result…

> I'd rather trust economic incentives to keep Internet free than political incentives

I don't trust economic incentives at all... The internet and cable industry is notorious for their frivolous price grabs and there's a lot of money to be made playing gatekeeper to something hundreds of millions of people use every day.

In your example the customer wants something new, and the ISP has the economic incentive of providing it because they can charge a premium. What happens when this same incentive is placed on all other services... especially services you enjoy currently. Oh your Netflix/HBO Now is slow? Well that's because you don't have the Xfinity Online Streaming Package which is an extra $18.99/month. Hey, the people wanted faster streaming speeds right? This is just economic incentive.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#59

Post by uncletammy »

honestoHeminway wrote: post #4

The mistake was for the internet to grow on the ISPs infrastructure in the first place. Now they will murder anything new by slowing it to a crawl. So to succeed, on must have superior compression- and/or a alternative infrastructure. Or- one could try to hijack the fastlanes.

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. I'd love to hear your opinion on what form the build-out of the internet should have taken. If not on ISPs infrastructure, then who's?

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#60

Post by unclesaamm »

This article buys way too much into the concept of "democratic efficiency", that "being heard" leads directly to government action, and therefore lack of action (or the wrong kind of action) is _caused by_ a lack of "being heard". This is so, so, so wrong, and is just further setting the stage for net neutrality to be repealed and for the blame to be cast at activists' feet. Net neutrality is one of the most popular policies in recent memory, and for it to be constantly assaulted by the same handful of large ISPs is a perfect encapsulation of why capitalism is failing our society. We're going to get tiered Internet not because the "Day of Action" was unsuccessful, but because there is no way that Ajit Pai would have satisfied himself with anything except a repeal of net neutrality. Do you really think he's going to sit there reading the comments, and think, "I have been wrong my entire career!"

The issue at hand is clearly about a government that is utterly unresponsive to its people.

Post reply on HN