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

121–130 of 136 posts

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#121

Post by anotherbrownguy »

syshum wrote: post #116
anotherbrownguy wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THIS. It is very clear that if there is a "MASSIVE wave of anything", it is from the other side i.e. companies like Netflix, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter etc. They have made it an "internet freedom" issue when internet freedom is not a problem at all. If there is a threat on internet freedom, it's already there and it's Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. who can pick and choose what a user can see on the internet…

Someone did not read the story it would seem..... >They have made it an "internet freedom" issue when internet freedom is not a problem at all. Example of the disinformation... >If there is a threat on internet freedom, it's already there and it's Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. who can pick and choose what a user can see on the internet. They can? How do they do that? I do not use Facebook or Twitter at all, and used…

>They can?

Yes.

>How do they do that?

Most people get their news from their Facebook newsfeed or their Google search results. Facebook can analyze and prioritize certain content over another. Google does the same. The best example of this is how uninformed you are about this issue.

>You really believe the is "at best" all they can do... really...

Yes. What else can they do? Most traffic is secure and the internet is moving more and more towards secure traffic everywhere. ISPs can't intercept the content of the traffic. So, they might block the IP of the server but they can't block the information if it is shared in social media for example.

>Example of the disinformation... >You just keep highlighting how successful the disinformation campaign is...

So, where is this "disinformation" you speak of? Where am I being bombarded by this idea? I haven't heard or read anything about this from any sources. It is based on my own understanding of the issue. You can read more in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14807940 and tell me where I am wrong.

All I see everywhere is disinformation from the other side and they don't even bring up the actual issue anywhere ever. So, I am pretty much certain that they are the ones disinforming people.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#122

Post by syshum »

anotherbrownguy wrote: post #121
syshum wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone did not read the story it would seem..... >They have made it an "internet freedom" issue when internet freedom is not a problem at all. Example of the disinformation... >If there is a threat on internet freedom, it's already there and it's Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. who can pick and choose what a user can see on the internet. They can? How do they do that? I do not use Facebook or Twitter at all, and used…

>They can? Yes. >How do they do that? Most people get their news from their Facebook newsfeed or their Google search results. Facebook can analyze and prioritize certain content over another. Google does the same. The best example of this is how uninformed you are about this issue. >You really believe the is "at best" all they can do... really... Yes. What else can they do? Most traffic is secure and the internet is…

>>Yes. What else can they do? Most traffic is secure and the internet is moving more and more towards secure traffic everywhere. ISPs can't intercept the content of the traffic. So, they might block the IP of the server but they can't block the information if it is shared in social media for example

That is funny right there, see the difference is people have a CHOICE to get their news from facebook (which facebook is not a news organization but anyway) or some other source

I however do not have a CHOICE in broadband internet providers, I use comcast or Nothing, there is no other option for me.

I have CHOOSEN not to use Facebook instead I use other services to communicate with friends and family, I can not CHOOSE the use another ISP as none are available

See the difference...

But continue to educate me on how uninformed I am on this issue despite my near 20 years working professionally in the field

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#123

Post by manigandham »

radarsat1 wrote: post #105
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…

> a government that is utterly unresponsive to its people. Isn't that what is meant by "not being heard"?

hearing != understanding != acting on behalf of

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#124

Post by rotten »

hnal943 wrote: post #38
rotten wrote: post #23

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 think competition was more responsible for free long distance than the cost of billing customers.

One of my friends was a software developer for the billing software for a cell provider, so I had some "inside scoop" in learning that...

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#126

Post by honestoHeminway »

cr0sh wrote: post #90
uncletammy wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ueber a trucker with a harddrive?

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#127

Post by anotherbrownguy »

syshum wrote: post #122
anotherbrownguy wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They can? Yes. >How do they do that? Most people get their news from their Facebook newsfeed or their Google search results. Facebook can analyze and prioritize certain content over another. Google does the same. The best example of this is how uninformed you are about this issue. >You really believe the is "at best" all they can do... really... Yes. What else can they do? Most traffic is secure and the internet is…

>>Yes. What else can they do? Most traffic is secure and the internet is moving more and more towards secure traffic everywhere. ISPs can't intercept the content of the traffic. So, they might block the IP of the server but they can't block the information if it is shared in social media for example That is funny right there, see the difference is people have a CHOICE to get their news from facebook (which facebook i…

>I use comcast or Nothing, there is no other option for me

That is unfortunate... not the fact that you don't have an option... but the fact that you are on the side of the argument which denies you that option.

I'm done here. Good luck!

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#128

Post by SherlockeHolmes »

anotherbrownguy wrote: post #127
syshum wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Yes. What else can they do? Most traffic is secure and the internet is moving more and more towards secure traffic everywhere. ISPs can't intercept the content of the traffic. So, they might block the IP of the server but they can't block the information if it is shared in social media for example That is funny right there, see the difference is people have a CHOICE to get their news from facebook (which facebook i…

>I use comcast or Nothing, there is no other option for me That is unfortunate... not the fact that you don't have an option... but the fact that you are on the side of the argument which denies you that option. I'm done here. Good luck!

You missed his point. He is pointing out that Comcast (and other ISPs) already has substantial power over end-users, since in most cases they are the only ones that can provide internet connectivity.

However, one can easily choose to never use Facebook and not lose quintillionth of the information available on the internet. Facebook or any other such service is one of a quintillion of end-nodes that you can reach on the internet.

Comcast is the choke through which your internet connectivity comes through, and you are proposing to allow increased manipulative power to them.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#129

Post by splintercell »

s73ver wrote: post #113
uncletammy wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being downvoted for making people read the words "Fox news" but you're absolutely right about this. I would state it another way though. Fox news is hugely profitable because it provides information to people that validates, reinforces, and legitimizes their particular social and political beliefs. It thickens the walls of their bubble. Fox news led the way with this and every other network quickly followed su…

No, they really are not. "Economic incentives" only come into play when there are choices. Most people do not have any kind of choice in their ISP, thus the "Economic incentives" argument carries no water.

Currently there isn't a strong enough economic incentive. You may think that your service sucks, but that does not create an enough economic incentive.

This does not counter the argument that if tomorrow an ISP not delivering the content you desire, then there wouldn't be a rise of a newer service/solutions (they don't really have to be a new ISP btw) which allow consumers to access the suppressed viewpoint.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#130

Post by s73ver »

splintercell wrote: post #129
s73ver wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they really are not. "Economic incentives" only come into play when there are choices. Most people do not have any kind of choice in their ISP, thus the "Economic incentives" argument carries no water.

Currently there isn't a strong enough economic incentive. You may think that your service sucks, but that does not create an enough economic incentive. This does not counter the argument that if tomorrow an ISP not delivering the content you desire, then there wouldn't be a rise of a newer service/solutions (they don't really have to be a new ISP btw) which allow consumers to access the suppressed viewpoint.

Which will then be shut down by the ISP, as the new site won't have enough money to pay the toll.

I'm sorry, but this argument that "everything will work out for the better" isn't convincing me.

Post reply on HN