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

FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 674 posts

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#81

Post by falcolas »

pneill wrote: post #32

Maybe I'm lone dissenter, but I don't understand the push back on this. People who read hacker news should be among the elite technologist, do we really all believe that every packet should be treated the same? Should an E911 call or tele-surgery packets really be treated the same as Netflix? Net neutrality forces the ISP to do that and that seems like madness to me.

No, they shouldn't all be treated equally. But the packet's source or destination should also not matter. NN fully supports traffic QOS by packet purpose (i.e. VOIP over gaming over web over bittorrent), just not by origin or destination.

And it's origin/destination that ISPs demonstrably want to prioritize by.

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#82

Post by DesiLurker »

pneill wrote: post #32

Maybe I'm lone dissenter, but I don't understand the push back on this. People who read hacker news should be among the elite technologist, do we really all believe that every packet should be treated the same? Should an E911 call or tele-surgery packets really be treated the same as Netflix? Net neutrality forces the ISP to do that and that seems like madness to me.

so the issue you bring up is good because there is difference between origin neutrality and content neutrality. unfortunately (IMO) its rather naive to think that comcast has your best interests and will do the 'right thing' when they have power to distort the traffic and make so much money while they are at it. This action effectively allows them to double dip into any internet startups profits and worse yet pick out winners and losers based on their whim.

Oh well .. that's the america we live in now.

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#83

Post by slouch »

pneill wrote: post #32

Maybe I'm lone dissenter, but I don't understand the push back on this. People who read hacker news should be among the elite technologist, do we really all believe that every packet should be treated the same? Should an E911 call or tele-surgery packets really be treated the same as Netflix? Net neutrality forces the ISP to do that and that seems like madness to me.

So, why does the hospital next to my house deserve cleaner water? Isn't this the same argument?

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#84

Post by sharemywin »

Lukeas14 wrote: post #47
ProAm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the end, especially on HN, it comes down to a discussion regarding money and who is allowed to make it and who is not. You'll find startups opposed because it hinders their opportunity to disrupt an established business, and you'll find entrenched business opposed to not making money as they see fit. There is nothing political about this discussion, it's just about money and which side of the coin you are trying t…

Except in this case all of the entrenched, large internet businesses (Google, Facebook, etc) are against ending net neutrality. You would think that since they have the deep pockets to pay ISPs, they would be the beneficiaries. So are they protesting this action simply out of principal? Or is there some other benefit they get from net neutrality that I'm not seeing?

Imagine you were selling your rent controlled apartment on Airbnb and all the sudden the landlord wanted a fat cut. You'd be pissed...

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#85

Post by pmoriarty »

fokinsean wrote: post #18

Tweet in article: >On December 14, the FCC will vote on Chairman Pai's plan to repeal President Obama's heavy-handed Internet regulations and restore Internet freedom. I love how these laws are veiled with patriotic sentiments, e.g. "Internet Freedom". Just like the "Patriot Act", it is reasonable to assume anything with these sort of labels will likely be an encroachment on your freedoms. Also >"The job of the FCC i…

">On December 14, the FCC will vote on Chairman Pai's plan to repeal President Obama's heavy-handed Internet regulations and restore Internet freedom."

Freedom for whom?

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#86

Post by DesiLurker »

kbhn wrote: post #62
pneill wrote: post #32

Maybe I'm lone dissenter, but I don't understand the push back on this. People who read hacker news should be among the elite technologist, do we really all believe that every packet should be treated the same? Should an E911 call or tele-surgery packets really be treated the same as Netflix? Net neutrality forces the ISP to do that and that seems like madness to me.

thats a good way to put it.

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#87

Post by nafizh »

cwyers wrote: post #22

I don't know, the Internet got on fine without those rules for a lot longer than we've had those rules, I feel like the gloom-and-doom over this is highly overstated.

It's like saying why do we need Environment protection laws, the world survived for 13 billion years. Well, duh, 'things' have changed.

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#88

Post by dinoleif »

ajmurmann wrote: post #51
dinoleif wrote: post #40

"Net neutrality" is one of the most Orwellian terms in modern usage. It's a corporate welfare play by large tech companies to "solve" a "problem" that nobody can identify. It's pre-emptive, busy-body regulation at its worst. Who was being harmed in the first 20 years of the internet without these regulations? Whose lives have been made better? Compared to what? Net neutrality advocates are utterly unable to give conv…

OK, I take the bait: Netflix and it's customers were harmed by traffic being throttled and customers being held hostage.

In what way are customers "held hostage"?

If you sign up for an internet plan that promises not to throttle certain sites and then that provider throttles those sites, you can sue them.

If you sign up for an internet plan that makes no such promises, why would one expect anything different?

This may sound like a harsh reality, but it's called "taking personal responsibility" and "voting with your feet". Switch to another internet provider.

The appeal to paternalistic regulatory bodies to restrict the choices of other consumers (who may want to purchase cheaper, more restricted internet plans) is creepy.

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#89

Post by ghewgill »

For those who don't understand why net neutrality is important, it is worthwhile to read about the history of communications (telephone, radio, TV). There is an excellent book by Tim Wu called The Master Switch [0] which investigates the history of communications (with an American focus), describes how each industry start out open to all (farmers using fences for telephone, independent radio broadcasters), and each one collapsed into monopolies with a near-impossible barrier to entry for anybody else who wanted to do the same thing.

Parallels are then drawn to the Internet, where if we're not paying attention to what is happening now, then the free and open nature of the Internet today will slowly vanish and be replaced by only the big sites who can afford to be on the Internet.

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/apr/02/master-switch-... (book review, you can find the actual book on Amazon or wherever)

Re: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see

#90

Post by charonn0 »

dinoleif wrote: post #40

"Net neutrality" is one of the most Orwellian terms in modern usage. It's a corporate welfare play by large tech companies to "solve" a "problem" that nobody can identify. It's pre-emptive, busy-body regulation at its worst. Who was being harmed in the first 20 years of the internet without these regulations? Whose lives have been made better? Compared to what? Net neutrality advocates are utterly unable to give conv…

> Who was being harmed in the first 20 years of the internet without these regulations?

It's not that these regulations didn't exist, it's that they hadn't been formalized as regulations. Net neutrality is how the Internet has worked for over 30 years, and is what made it such a success.

Post reply on HN