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

151–160 of 388 posts

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#151

Post by throwanem »

patrickaljord wrote: post #136
DarqWebster wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in this case the regulation is saying that the ISP must just carry bits. It's not forcing the ISP to do something to be compliant, it's forcing the ISP to not do something. So the costs of compliance are low, if not zero. There are short-term consumer benefits, in my country we have zero-rated services, where browsing certain sites costs no data. However this completely undermines the concept of the free marke…

> So the costs of compliance are low, if not zero. How could this possibly be zero? If a town's ISP has a bandwidth of 100Gb/s and has a demand of 200Gb/s by their customers, they can: - prioritize certain bits such as live streaming that can't be slown down without degrading user experience, unlike text (current solution) - slow down everything as forced by FCC's Net Neutrality (which would make live streaming unwat…

And if this was anything other than a question of whether to maintain the status quo, you might have a point or two here.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#152

Post by kelnos »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #47
tony101 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISPs are free to compete with Google, Facebook, etc by offering competitive web services. Instead, ISPs want to leverage their almost-exclusive control of Internet access to unfairly crush competition. Users can choose not the use Facebook. Many users cannot choose not to use Comcast, because Comcast is the only ISP in the area. Lack of competition among ISPs make them different from web companies.

> 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…

> By definition you're devaluing the infrastructure. This is saying, infrastructure does not deserve to make money, only ads deserve to make money.

Comcast etc. are already making money hand over fist. Removing net neutrality regulation will only allow them to engage in anti-consumer behavior in order to line their pockets further.

In general I wouldn't be opposed to that, except that we live in a world where you can't just decide to be an ISP. It's not in the public's interest to allow just any company to dig up the roadside everywhere to lay cable, and radio spectrum is a precious, scarce resource.

So that's the deal: we give them the privilege of being a monopoly, in exchange for legal mandates that they won't engage in certain types of anti-consumer behavior.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#153

Post by nneu »

patrickaljord wrote: post #136
DarqWebster wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in this case the regulation is saying that the ISP must just carry bits. It's not forcing the ISP to do something to be compliant, it's forcing the ISP to not do something. So the costs of compliance are low, if not zero. There are short-term consumer benefits, in my country we have zero-rated services, where browsing certain sites costs no data. However this completely undermines the concept of the free marke…

> So the costs of compliance are low, if not zero. How could this possibly be zero? If a town's ISP has a bandwidth of 100Gb/s and has a demand of 200Gb/s by their customers, they can: - prioritize certain bits such as live streaming that can't be slown down without degrading user experience, unlike text (current solution) - slow down everything as forced by FCC's Net Neutrality (which would make live streaming unwat…

Upgrading your infrastructure to meet the demand your customers place on it isn't a cost of regulatory compliance. It's the cost of doing business.

Where in the network neutrality order did the FCC impose censorship on the Internet?

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#154

Post by feikname »

patrickaljord wrote: post #136
DarqWebster wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in this case the regulation is saying that the ISP must just carry bits. It's not forcing the ISP to do something to be compliant, it's forcing the ISP to not do something. So the costs of compliance are low, if not zero. There are short-term consumer benefits, in my country we have zero-rated services, where browsing certain sites costs no data. However this completely undermines the concept of the free marke…

> So the costs of compliance are low, if not zero. How could this possibly be zero? If a town's ISP has a bandwidth of 100Gb/s and has a demand of 200Gb/s by their customers, they can: - prioritize certain bits such as live streaming that can't be slown down without degrading user experience, unlike text (current solution) - slow down everything as forced by FCC's Net Neutrality (which would make live streaming unwat…

> How could this possibly be zero? If a town's ISP has a bandwidth of 100Gb/s and has a demand of 200Gb/s by their customers, they can:

IMO, if you're selling more than you can provide, you're already doing it wrong...

It's not acceptable to prioritize some content over another when having the appropriate infrastructure would solve the problem.

> invest in bigger infrastructure and pass the cost down to consumers (which is not zero cost as you claim)

People will be paying for the product anyway, I don't see anything wrong with charging the cost of production/maintenance + profits (altough I suspect their profits might way higher than they should, and not being used to improve the ISP's as they should. I do not live in US though), that's what most other sellers around the world do and I really believe it's the most appropriate model.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#155

Post by r3bl »

erk__ wrote: post #148
narrator wrote: post #95

China does not have net neutrality. Almost everything coming into the country from outside is utterly filtered to hell and back. They do have a vibrant tech economy though. So they have their own Google (Baidu). They have their own Twitter (Weibo), WhatsApp(WeChat), Amazon(Tao Bao). So in the future of no net-neutrality, we'll see ISPs being value-added resellers of their own regionally partitioned versions of these…

That is not a question of net neutrality, every contry have blocked websites, for some reason or another.

Citation needed, because I sure as heck know that my country didn't.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#156

Post by ivarious »

https://i.imgur.com/DhL4vKq.jpg

Indonesia doesn't have net neutrality laws. That's the screenshot of Indosat (Internet Provider)'s app where you can buy data plan from. But as you can see, they sell data plans ala carte, per application in this case. If your favorite app is not there, you're shit out of luck and have to use the more expensive universal data plan.

Not only that, last year, the biggest home internet provider (Indihome), and the biggest mobile internet provider (Telkomsel), which both are owned by the government, banned Netflix under the guise of "Netflix hasn't rated nor censored their contents based on our country's rules". The truth is that both of them are selling their own movie streaming service. Indihome has partnership with iflix, and Telkomsel with HOOQ.

Now, if you buy new prepaid number from Telkomsel, this is the kind of data fuckery you will get. https://i.imgur.com/wb6gMBo.png

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#157

Post by kelnos »

martin1975 wrote: post #15
caburlingame wrote: post #6

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

Well, Ajit Pai says it stifles investments. Apparently investments fell by 5% or so over a period of time since the Title II classification. While I love NN, I also hate no viable competition to cable/ISP monopolies. I don't think NN would be an issue if everyone had at least 3 viable choices of broadband providers. That's the right (tm) way to address it, or should I say market-based, by fostering competition via po…

Removing net neutrality regulation will absolutely not increase competition in the ISP space. Why would it? Because then there'd be potentially more money in it, based on all the new ways ISPs could screw with customers?

First off, no: we don't allow any random company to dig up our roadsides to lay cable, and that's a good thing.

But let's say we did. So you want to attract competition by showing the newcomers that they can make more money than in the net-neutrality era by engaging in anti-customer behavior? How is _that_ good? Or are you expecting more competitors to come in out of the goodness of their hearts and "settle" for building a current-style (quite lucrative) ISP business without that behavior, making less money?

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#159

Post by neuterlize »

patrickaljord wrote: post #136
DarqWebster wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in this case the regulation is saying that the ISP must just carry bits. It's not forcing the ISP to do something to be compliant, it's forcing the ISP to not do something. So the costs of compliance are low, if not zero. There are short-term consumer benefits, in my country we have zero-rated services, where browsing certain sites costs no data. However this completely undermines the concept of the free marke…

> So the costs of compliance are low, if not zero. How could this possibly be zero? If a town's ISP has a bandwidth of 100Gb/s and has a demand of 200Gb/s by their customers, they can: - prioritize certain bits such as live streaming that can't be slown down without degrading user experience, unlike text (current solution) - slow down everything as forced by FCC's Net Neutrality (which would make live streaming unwat…

Upgrading your infrastructure to meet the demand your customers place on it isn't a cost of regulatory compliance. It's the cost of doing business.

Where in the network neutrality order did the FCC impose censorship on the Internet?

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#160

Post by kelnos »

mindcrime wrote: post #51
tony101 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of competition is because: 1) ISPs agree not to compete; and 2) It is expensive for new entrants to build infrastructure. It would be ideal to solve NN with free market. But the ISPs have monopolies that prevent competition. Making net neutrality necessary today.

1) ISPs agree not to compete; and --> probably not. Cartels don't work in practice, because there's always an incentive to cheat. Look how often OPEC nations pump more oil than they agreed to pump. 2) It is expensive for new entrants to build infrastructure. --> Yes, but if the ROI is sufficient, it can still get done. 3) Local / state government "franchise" agreements which grant incumbents monopoly (or near monopol…

> 1) ISPs agree not to compete; and --> probably not.

Except they currently do this, so... yes.

> 2) It is expensive for new entrants to build infrastructure. --> Yes, but if the ROI is sufficient, it can still get done.

> 3) Local / state government "franchise" agreements which grant incumbents monopoly (or near monopoly) status. --> the real killer. If the local government regulates you out of the market, it's game over.

It's not in the public's interest to allow a bunch of random companies to dig up our roadsides to lay a ton of fiber, over and over and over. So I don't see this changing.

Post reply on HN