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

Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

battleforthenet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 388 posts

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#81

Post by shard972 »

sandmansandine wrote: post #64
ben940830298432 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have had the internet for a long time without net neutrality why do we all of sudden need it?

This is horrible argument. We had cars before seat belt laws why do we all of sudden need it? We had cars before airbags why do we all of sudden need it? We've has guns before gun control so why do we all of sudden need it? Edit: People have been giving birth for a long time without doctors so why do we all of sudden need it?

These are horrible counter arguments.

The only two that even remotely relevant are seatbelt laws and gun laws, the other two are not even laws.

For seat belt laws, there was evidence that such laws increased pedestrian injury rates and severity. Whos to say that outweighs the benefits of forcing a few people to wear seat belts that are already in their cars?

For gun control, to say this in american context is weird. The US barely has gun control so to say it like its absolutely needed is odd.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#82

Post by BoorishBears »

nkozyra wrote: post #62
BoorishBears wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than common sense? Targeted policy?

> common sense? Common sense says that, as a corporation, if I have a regional monopoly on internet access I should exploit that to the point that maximizes profitability.

>I should exploit that to the point that maximizes profitability.

And not take overly egregious actions that would force a government intervention which would probably lead to actions that damage my monopoly and harm profitability.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#83

Post by cmurf »

steanne wrote: post #78
seibelj wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m against net neutrality if you are allowed to choose your ISP. Where I live (Boston) I only have Comcast. Trees even block satellite. If we allowed any ISP to lease the line from Comcast and let me choose service, it would be different. As I only have Comcast, it is a monopoly and I’m opposed. But with true competition, I could choose from a range of ISP’s, even theoretically free broadband that would be ad suppor…

that only works as long as they actually compete on neutrality rather than collude.

The evidence is they do the same thing as insurance* companies. The conglomerate/merge regionally. So they buy up all the small competitors, while excluding any meaningful competition amongs the big players. Are they colluding? Maybe not explicitly over lunch, but they know what they need to do and direct competition, as if they're commodities, would be bad for their shareholders.

* health care pre-payment with no residual value plan

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#84

Post by [deleted] »

bduerst wrote: post #69
KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ISPs are free to compete with Google, Facebook, etc by offering competitive web services. By definition you're devaluing the infrastructure. This is saying, infrastructure does not deserve to make money, only ads deserve to make money. I'd rather ISPs not compete in web services and instead make money providing the pipes as it's an important job in its own right. Your logic leads to bad incentives for ISPs, leading…

There is a ton wrong with what you just commented. First of all, Google Fiber's strategy was not to make money but to push the industry to start installing new fiber-speed infrastructure, and it was successful (see the new ATT Fiber, etc.). Google did this because consuming it's services (like youtube) instead of watching TV are tied to having access to low-cost fast internet. You're also not understanding that commu…

[deleted]

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#85

Post by 19guid »

caburlingame wrote: post #6

Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.

I've posted this comment before in another thread:

I oppose net neutrality regulation. In principle, I don't think there's anything wrong with an ISP prioritizing certain kinds of traffic over others, so long as it does not have an anti-competitive effect.

For example, I don't see how Netflix paying Comcast to zero-rate Netflix traffic is fundamentally different from Amazon contracting with mail carriers to subsidize the cost of shipping for Amazon purchases, or even -- to use an example another commenter made -- an appliance manufacturer contracting with electrical utilities to subsidize the cost of electricity used by their appliances. So long as Comcast makes its zero-rating program available to all content providers -- including their own -- on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, I don't think there are any competition issues.

I've heard people argue that zero-rating makes it harder for smaller content providers to compete, since they won't have the resources to subsidize their customers' traffic. As I said in another comment, that's just the nature of business. Being big affords you certain advantages, like economies of scale. This makes it easier to compete on price. Smaller companies have to compete in other ways.

In my view, the real problem with the telecom industry in the United States is a lack of competition [0], a problem caused at least in part by municipal [1] and state [2] governments. With more competition, net neutrality would be a non-issue. Consumers would just stop using ISPs that unfairly discriminate between traffic.

[0] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/410353/net-neutrality-...

[1] https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju...

[2] http://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblock...

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#86

Post by neuterlize »

Clanan wrote: post #59

I'm on the fence regarding this issue. The scaremongering on both sides is absolutely ridiculous. The planned order hasn't even been released! On the one hand, I can see why monopolistic powers in the hands of ISPs would be bad, but I like that the order would restore "police" powers to the FTC instead of the FCC, and I can't blame ISPs for wanting a piece of the $ pie. And it's not like the internet was a horrible w…

> The planned order hasn't even been released!

Be that time it'll probably be too late.

> On the one hand, I can see why monopolistic powers in the hands of ISPs would be bad, but I like that the order would restore "police" powers to the FTC instead of the FCC,

The FTC is not the correct body to "police" broadband.

> and I can't blame ISPs for wanting a piece of the $ pie.

I can. They are already getting paid. They should not be able to go back for seconds.

> And it's not like the internet was a horrible wasteland until 2015.

That's because network neutrality was the default state before. It's only now that is becoming feasible both from a technical and business perspective to violate network neutrality.

> But then again, Pai plan proponents keep saying this will spawn more innovation and improve utilities. That sounds pretty dubious and I haven't seen much proof. I don't recall any big innovation suddenly being stifled in 2015

Yeah, that's just a load of bullshit. CEOs have gone on record that NN will not affect business or investments.

> In my perfect world, the regulatory power would go back to the FTC but it would at the same time release a plan for opening up internet utility access so small players can compete with the big ones.

Too bad we already had that, minus the FTC part. Fat chance of getting it back.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#87

Post by propman »

This is all very confusing for me. Obviously I understand the NN arguments and I accept the Ajit Pai arguments though I think it's very naive to think that investments in infrastructure would be made without other significant incentives, all which seem unlikely to occur.

My question is about 2015. Did we have NN before 2015? What changed then and how would it differ from before? I was always under the assumption we had NN.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#88

Post by neuterlize »

rtx wrote: post #58
thomastjeffery wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There really isn't a sound argument against net neutrality. Many do argue that the FCC shouldn't have the authority to regulate the internet, and often argue that idea to subtly change the subject. If someone argues to abolish something, they should either argue in favor of a replacement, or argue that that thing should not exist at all. Unfortunately, I haven't heard even a flawed version of either argument. Another…

If we want something for the public good, it should be publically funded.

> If we want something for the public good, it should be publically funded.

That's just a silly argument.

If we are going there, let's first have the ISPs vacate all public rights of way and return all government subsidies.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#89

Post by pritambaral »

adventured wrote: post #25
zackelan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're unconvinced, you should default to supporting net neutrality. It's the status quo, the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is on the people wishing to make this fundamental change to the structure of the internet.

Net neutrality has only existed in actual law for an extremely short amount of time. Or put another way, for about 90%+ of the Web-Internet combo's active existence in the US consumer market, net neutrality has not been law.

Even when it wasn't the law, Net Neutrality existed in practice, and there was little interest shown by then ISPs to break that. Now there is a lot of interest by current ISPs to not be neutral, which makes it necessary for Net Neutrality to be the law.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#90

Post by memeCrasher »

mlamat wrote: post #12
caburlingame wrote: post #6

Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.

I'm not convinced. Why am I supposed to take sides in a fight between two industries?

What makes you think you're taking sides between two industries?

The way I see it, and probably why Google et al don't seem to be throwing up a recent fuss anymore, is that the big tech companies and industry giants can cut deals with the major ISP's to avoid throttling or provide services/expertise to the ISP's. So the end result is turning Google et al into their OWN monopolies. (e.g. Comcast partners with Youtube to deliver streaming video!)

Now you get telecom monopolies AND service/content monopolies.

Truly the best of both worlds.

Post reply on HN