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

201–210 of 388 posts

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#201

Post by zaarn »

patrickaljord wrote: post #197
zaarn wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A small town can still service two or more ISPs, the lack of competition is what's ruining it and the lack of NN won't make it a bit better. You should maybe also remind yourself that some people are not in the position to move around the country. You should not equate your own capabilities in life with those of others.

> You should maybe also remind yourself that some people are not in the position to move around the country. After living years in Syria and then in Peru, I can say that small towns folks most likely to leave to big cities are not the ones that are well off but the poorest one on the contrary in order to find a job to sustain them. So yeah, I would say it's mostly rich people that can afford to stay in small towns, t…

Some people cannot move. Period. It may be their monetary situation, or something else.

Suggesting that the situation in Syria and Peru is the same as in the US is also rather disingenuous. It is with high probability not.

And even if it was so, does that mean the ISP gets the automatic right to fuck over everyone left because they didn't move? Does that right extend to other things? Should water utility not be provided to them because they didn't move?

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#202

Post by kadenshep »

Eupolemos wrote: post #196
fractalf wrote: post #77

Every two three years we have to do the same fight over and over again? :/

Well, not after you lose. I think this time is it. However, it is "merely" a symptom of the US political system not being sensitive to the citizens' wants and needs. Or no longer being a democracy by modern standards, if you want to be dramatic.

>However, it is "merely" a symptom of the US political system not being sensitive to the citizens' wants and needs.

No. Stop saying this. It completely muddies the water on what's actually going on here. People DID vote for this. They voted for their reps. And they voted for reps of a very particular political bent.

Elections have consequences.

The electorate chose this. Freely and willingly. The electorate being completely unqualified to understand issues ranging from technology to healthcare to economics isn't really a fault of the U.S. political system at this point.

Stop giving the people that vote for these reps (and the President) free passes and address the root issue. They have voted this way for decades and will continue to do so and no amount of changing or tweaking the political system is really going to have any noticeable effect on the policies they will support. The U.S. political system is listening to the electorate. Stop pretending it's not.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#203

Post by nerdponx »

bnjms wrote: post #120
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…

Something I never see considered is that markets exist in a context. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that as a rule of thumb regulation should be eliminated and that competition is good. Both towards improving consumers lives. But it isn't reasonable to assume these two tenets are always aligned or to take them as ends unto themselves.

It's a fallacy that some writers have called "economism". Basically amounts to blind adherence to Econ 101 principles. There's a whole book on it, I think you can find it https://www.economism.net

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#204

Post by lucb1e »

snowmaker wrote: post #180
ryandrake wrote: post #174

The site is technically pretty neat, but honestly does anyone think a bunch of low-effort automated calls to a Congressperson's voicemail is really going to change anything? The commoners' opinions about Net Neutrality (or any issue, really) is pretty low on the list of things our so-called representatives are worried about.

Calls from real people to Congress do have a real impact. Calls from a site just like this are what killed the SOPA/PIPA legislation.

Source?

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#205

Post by no_wizard »

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…

For the record, Net Neautraility does not and is not a legal framework for telling ISPs about how to manage their bandwidth. In its most simplistic terms:

Net neutrality is simply tha concept of treating access to the network (in this example the ISP and the greater internet it connects to) where it does not prioritize one set of bits and simultaneously and purposefully (and typically for the exchange of money) slow down access to something else.

Bandwidth management, or the idea of prioritizing on the fly to ensure quality service, does not inheritantly violate those principals. What does is if the video people paid th ISP money for faster bits and to slow down competitors and/or the ISP slowing down competitors to promote its own services.

Notice it also has no legal framework for specific types of access or information, simply that the pipe should be neutral and non-interfered. In fact, net neutrality laws can help improve privacy and gives more standing for companies to fight back against gov surveillance

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#206

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

ryandrake wrote: post #174

The site is technically pretty neat, but honestly does anyone think a bunch of low-effort automated calls to a Congressperson's voicemail is really going to change anything? The commoners' opinions about Net Neutrality (or any issue, really) is pretty low on the list of things our so-called representatives are worried about.

Make an appointment to meet with them in person. They're probably home for the holidays.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#207

Post by throwanem »

patrickaljord wrote: post #168
throwanem wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'd rather have the status quo than giving full censorship power to a government agency. Not to mention that fiber is getting to more places each day with most of the densest cities covered now. Looks like the problems Net Neutrality was supposed to protect us from are not as grave as they used to be and that the market kind of sorted itself out. Why give the FCC/Trump full censorship power now and force ISPs to jack…

Net neutrality is the status quo. No one is talking about adding complex new regulation here but you.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#208

Post by r3bl »

container wrote: post #177
r3bl wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

May I ask what country that is?

Bosnia & Herzegovina. Serbia also doesn't (but their government uses other mechanisms for online disruption, including DDoS, bot armies, and breaking into websites it doesn't like). And neither does Montenegro. I can't guarantee that the same is true for Croatia as well, but I think that's the case there too.

That doesn't say that they don't want to block anything, it's just that they are fighting what they don't like on the Internet using different means.

To elaborate on that with one specific example from Bosnia, there was a case in which a government wanted to cut the access to a site spreading ISIS propaganda in a local language. They've successfully shut down a top level domain they were using, after which they've switched to a *.wordpress.com domain. That lasted a really long time (years I would say), but a court order managed to shut down that one as well (individual reports to WordPress, including mine, did not). And after all of that, they've arrested the founder of the website.

EDIT: Here's a screenshot of WordPress' response to me when I reported the website: https://i.imgur.com/suHPZeF.png

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#209

Post by patrickaljord »

zaarn wrote: post #201
patrickaljord wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should maybe also remind yourself that some people are not in the position to move around the country. After living years in Syria and then in Peru, I can say that small towns folks most likely to leave to big cities are not the ones that are well off but the poorest one on the contrary in order to find a job to sustain them. So yeah, I would say it's mostly rich people that can afford to stay in small towns, t…

Some people cannot move. Period. It may be their monetary situation, or something else. Suggesting that the situation in Syria and Peru is the same as in the US is also rather disingenuous. It is with high probability not. And even if it was so, does that mean the ISP gets the automatic right to fuck over everyone left because they didn't move? Does that right extend to other things? Should water utility not be provi…

> does that mean the ISP gets the automatic right to fuck over everyone left because they didn't move?

The fact that they refuse to invest money they will never get back doesn't mean they want to "fuck you over". Have you ever thrown money out of the window just for fun? Well now you understand these ISPs' point of view.

> Should water utility not be provided to them because they didn't move?

If there's only one person left in town, should a billion dollar installation still be maintained for that one person? What if it's 5 people or a couple of hundreds? Isn't it selfish too to demand a whole billion service industry (internet, water etc) to invest and work just for you and run their business as a loss just because you refuse to move? Western countries are running with trillions of dollars in debts because of these kinds of "investments", not sure if this is sustainable (surely hope so but doubt it). I would personally love to live in the middle of nowhere in beautiful Peru with high speed internet, clean water and top infrastructure, I would never demand anyone to pay for it for me however.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#210

Post by folknor »

pjc50 wrote: post #193
folknor wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was not making myself clear; the top comment seems to imply that there's some sort of natural connection between anti-globalism (in the popular sense of the term) and a rejection of net neutrality laws. I am a fierce proponent of net neutrality, and I don't understand how you can reasonably conclude that I must therefore be pro-globalism. Or how you can say that someone who is anti-globalist is probably also anti n…

Neutral networks converge on natural monopolies, globally. So a neutral net ends up with Facebook and Google "on top" in every country. This is globalisation in the Naomi Klein sense: the same brands dominating every market. Of course, a non-neutral net ends up with the ISPs as natural monopolies instead, but these are local and a lot closer to the state in most places. How well this is linked to populist anti-global…

Wow, thank you - I've never heard that argument before.

I'm not sure I know of an intelligent right-leaning person who thinks monopolies of any kind is a good idea, but I can see the argument being used in a "stepping-stone" sense towards a Republican ideal less regulated environment that would "naturally eradicate" monopolies.

I can see it used like that, but I've never heard of it. Of course, that might be because I'm not from the US.

Also, I don't necessarily agree that ISPs are closer to the state in most places, but that's not worth talking about because as far as I can see, neither of us agree with the argument anyway, you only enlightened me to its existence.

But like you said yourself, how this is linked to populist anti-globalism is not clear.

The original poster said, > "It goes along with the Trump political theme of anti-globalization."

So that's really the question at hand. At this point, it feels to me like the original poster is just virtue-signalling, which baffles me.

Post reply on HN