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

71–80 of 136 posts

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#71

Post by richardknop »

fredley wrote: post #16
hartator wrote: post #15

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…

You have to sign up to hefty subscription packages with loads of bundled shite just to watch 7 hours of Game of Thrones.

You don't have to. Most people watch GoT for free either from torrents or from free streaming websites.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#72

Post by crispyambulance »

Arubis wrote: post #61
gremlinsinc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 N…

As much as that would be emotionally satisfying, I suspect that would be handing victory to Comcast et at., as they could claim the moral high ground of "we're just trying to best serve our customers". One-offs raise visibility. Scheduling pain for people you're trying to convince that you're right will just make them resent you.

Yes, and that would also cost the websites dearly in terms of revenue. They don't care THAT MUCH.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#73

Post by aphextron »

I think it is a growing sense of complete helplessness in American politics. Corporations and politicians will do as they wish, and we'll sit back and watch it on CNN. What can we possibly do? Yes, there will be protests and such. But as we've seen endlessly in this country, the money always wins. The slacktivism shown in this article exemplifies the state of complete cynicism we've reached as a society.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#74

Post by metalliqaz »

uncletammy wrote: post #55
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 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 tha…

Operating on unlicensed bands means it would die as soon as it became popular.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#75

Post by s73ver »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #53
cribbles wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 repu…

"Clinton lost because the DNC cheated to get her where she was in the first place"

They absolutely did not. There was absolutely no evidence of such things happening. There was no mass conspiracy.

Seriously, more Democrats wanted Clinton than Bernie. That's why she won. Get over it.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#76

Post by metalliqaz »

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.

I agree. The gov dropped the ball by failing to build out the infrastructure itself, such that they were kept public utilities. They obviously didn't understand the importance that these networks would eventually have.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#77

Post by chestervonwinch »

ajross wrote: post #70
unclesaamm wrote: post #60

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…

Pai's immediate predecessor literally flipped his position on net neutrality, owing largely (at least as is commonly assumed) to political pressure from the White House, itself driven by clearly expressed sentiment among the democratic base. Absent the earlier burst of activism, it's unlikely the Obama administration would have cared enough to lean on Wheeler. That doesn't mean that it's going to work on Trump and Pa…

There's a number of studies showing how legislation doesn't represent the preferences of constituents. See for more info, represent.us or the Anti-corruption act [1]. The last net neutrality outcry was unique in that nearly every major internet-based company joined in the protest. I don't think I've ever seen that happen for any other issue before.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Corruption_Act

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#78

Post by godelski »

unclesaamm wrote: post #60

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…

I think with politics taking such a hard line position on reducing neutrality that we really have to just bypass the politics of it all together. If we look at history, it would suggest that this is the major way to avoid a lot of these issues (don't get me wrong, politics is definitely a catalyst). This has been true for GW, medicine, access to materials (water, food), etc. Because frankly throughout history it is common to have a

> government that is utterly unresponsive to its people.

But is there a way that we can make it near impossible to not have net neutrality? As far as I'm aware, there is no solution that doesn't allow for someone to obtain control. Fixing the human factor is difficult, but is there a clear way to bypass it?

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#79

Post by kurthr »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #51
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 N…

Instead, if you use the great firewall technique of just making the connection slow... and telling the customer that it's slow because their ISP doesn't support NN and how to fix it... then most users will blame their ISP for slowness, as usual.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#80

Post by s73ver »

So question: Google, Facebook, Netflix, et al all say that Net Neutrality is extremely important to their business. Why are they not drowning legislators in lobbying and "campaign contributions" to make sure it stays? I mean, they have to be able to outspend the cable companies. And if the GOP position suddenly flip flops to be in favor of NN, it's not like any of their base will notice.
Post reply on HN