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

81–90 of 136 posts

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#81

Post by s73ver »

metalliqaz wrote: post #14
jolux wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump doesn't care about listening to anyone, least of all those who put him in office. Republicans in general don't either, or they wouldn't be cutting everyone's healthcare.

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.

The problem for them is they have a slim margin. And there's disagreement between cutting healthcare a little bit for the moderates, or completely slashing it for the hardcore.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#82

Post by payne92 »

We may need to first live with some ISP shenanigans before everybody fully understands what network neutrality is about.

A few years ago, I noticed that frontier was hijacking Google searches. A search bar search for "Amazon" went straight to amazon.com, complete with an affiliate id!

I wrote a letter to the Frontier CEO, sent it via FedEx, and she called me directly within hours of receiving it. The gist of my letter was, "by behaving this way, you are bringing the debate on yourself." She was unaware her company was doing this and stopped the practice.

This is a small example that's easily detectable externally (unlike internal network traffic shaping). But we may need to cycle through a few stories like this to cut through the rhetoric.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#83

Post by [deleted] »

richardknop wrote: post #71
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…

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.

[deleted]

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#84

Post by metalliqaz »

splintercell wrote: post #19
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…

> 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. The thing about human mind is that there is no way to truly stop the way it reasons other than to counter it with reason. You can't really change someone's mind by smacking them in the fa…

I find that libertarians are hopelessly out of touch when it comes to the Net Neutrality debate. Sticking to their ideologies is fully expected, and I respect that they actually have a well thought-out ideology, but unfortunately it just doesn't jive with reality.

The the efficiency of the market only works when there is an actual market. We have none. Not even Google could break the Telco strangle-hold on the market. (Google Fiber has basically folded) In an environment like that, removing regulation only serves the incumbent monopoly.

Healthy competition would be great, but it's not realistic anymore. At this point we need our government to stand up for us.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#85

Post by wcarron »

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 cheater to get her where she was in the first place

There is no grand conspiracy. Stop kidding yourself. More Democrats preferred Hillary over Bernie. End of story. The reason is obvious: Bernie Sanders is not a democrat. Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist. He joined the Democratic party solely for a larger support base and because the Democrats align more with his ideals than Republicans do.

It is absolutely no surprise that the DNC establishment preferred an establishment candidate who had long been a prominent member of the party. Not some coat-tail hanger-on using the predominantly liberal base of a party that he only nominally belongs to. He does not represent the interests (arguably) of the majority of the Democratic party voters. That's why he lost.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#86

Post by emodendroket »

splintercell wrote: post #33
emodendroket wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly, but also remember, an exploit is an exploit, whether someone uses it or not. If by passing Net Neutrality laws, govt can take over the Internet, then govt can take over the internet at war time even without net neutrality laws. 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 fina…

How does enforcing net neutrality enable censorship? What does one thing have to do with the other?

And what about the (in my opinion, more realistic in the United States) risk of private corporations such as Internet service providers restricting what their users see? Especially when you consider in how many cases your choices are one ISP or else no Internet access at all?

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#87

Post by drewmol »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #32
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…

Or you could just set up an antenna and enjoy the multitude of digital broadcast channels.

For now you can, but only until grandma dies. Once the daytime OTA TV watching voting group is small enough, Telco mafia will completely repurpose the spectrum. [1]https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/business/dealbook/tv-s...

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#88

Post by s73ver »

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 most of us are not laissez faire people, and we absolutely do care, because in order for FB to deliver that, other things, potentially competing things, would have to be slowed down.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#89

Post by s73ver »

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…

Please do not spread unfounded conspiracy theories here. There is absolutely nothing to back up that position.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#90

Post by cr0sh »

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…

Mesh can work for short-haul. But long-haul routes are a problem. For instance, how would you mesh network between Los Angeles and Phoenix? Or Phoenix and Las Vegas? Those are "local" but long-haul routes for me. I can see the (slim) possibility of Phoenix to Tucson or Flagstaff. There is (almost) enough intervening users (potentially) to form the mesh (although it would be very bottlenecked).

Mesh networks right now are great for large urban populations - megacities, dense sprawl areas, etc. But for everything in between, at least here in US where the issue of Net Neutrality is the thing - not so much.

Post reply on HN