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

261–270 of 388 posts

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#261

Post by dcow »

no_wizard wrote: post #205
patrickaljord wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Net neutrality in its purist form definitely means every packet is treated equal. The whole discussion started because ISPs wanted to charge more for streaming content because it's an increased load on their network.

Your argument is usually what I tell people when they ask about NN. It's a lot more complicated than treating every packet equal because at capacity networks want to manage bandwidth.

You could also think of it this way, why should the general user be required to subsidize a heavy BitTorrent user's traffic? Now maybe ISPs shouldn't oversell in the first place, but the operating state of a network is congestion.

Your argument is very moderate and is not NN, but it's close. I would tend to agree and prefer what you describe: content neutral bandwidth management. But that's pretty much an oxymoron.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#262

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mediocrejoker wrote: post #244
rainbowmverse wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big ISPs (in the US) haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.

That's fair but you also have to ask what's in it for them to screw their users in this way. Why would an ISP want to prevent some small, unrelated startup from gaining exposure?

> Why would an ISP want to prevent some small, unrelated startup from gaining exposure?

Once the startup takes all the risk to demonstrate market demand, the ISP can come in with their own offering and use the ISP monopoly to destroy the competition.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#263

Post by mikeash »

19guid wrote: post #85
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…

I think your mail analogy falls apart because mail carriers are end-to-end, while ISPs are part of a much larger heterogeneous network. If Amazon can get a special deal from FedUps to deliver a package from their warehouse to my door, that's reasonable since it's just a standard business deal exchanging services for money.

The international postal network is a bit more analogous. Let's say you order something from Widget Industrie in France. They pay La Poste to send it to your door in the US. La Poste transfers it to USPS, and pays USPS part of the postage to handle their end of it. Now imagine that USPS leaves your package on the warehouse floor for three weeks because Widget Industrie didn't sign up for their "expedited service" plan. Widget Industrie has never even talked to USPS, maybe doesn't even know that USPS exists.

Of course, international mail is regulated and has had "mail neutrality" since the 19th century, so you don't have to worry about that.

If some company wants to provide specialized data services so that Netflix can send data through their service to customers, that's fine with me. But that's not "the internet." These companies should decide whether they want to provide "internet access" or just specialized paid data access. Back to the mail analogy, FedEx and UPS have much more flexibility in terms of how they operate than USPS does, but as a consequence they don't get to participate in the international mail system.

And indeed, this already happens. Many ISPs provide phone and TV services separate from "internet" services. Nobody is complaining that Netflix can't get into your cable TV package, even though it's all just digital bits on the wire these days. But they don't call it "internet service." When they call a service that, there are certain expectations.

I agree that a lack of competition is the major problem here. If any given ISP customer had a dozen services to choose from, this would all go away. But that's a vastly more difficult problem. Saying we shouldn't worry about net neutrality because the real solution is competition is like saying we shouldn't worry about social security because the real problem is aging. Yes, if we solved aging we wouldn't need social security, but that's not a realistic approach.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#265

Post by donkeyd »

mediocrejoker wrote: post #226
ivarious wrote: post #156

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 pr…

my first question would be how the prices of the unlimited plan compares to the regular plans of other ISPs. In other words, are these ‘walled garden’ plans aimed towards people who would otherwise buy a regular data plan or are they aimed at people for whom the choice is a walled plan or no plan.

The screenshot in OP's post and this[0] comment, make me think that cheap plans will mostly allow you to use apps/sites where the companies pay the ISP. These will be things like YouTube and Netflix, who need visitors for profit. Things that will be blocked by default are sites like HN, company websites, personal websites and anything else that isn't a huge company. So in the cheaper plans, the one being visited pays, in the expensive one, the one who visits pays.

In the end, it's just another revenue stream where, if they play it right, the consumer still pays the same, but the content providers also start paying. This means more money from the same bandwidth.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15757190

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#266

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mediocrejoker wrote: post #226
ivarious wrote: post #156

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 pr…

my first question would be how the prices of the unlimited plan compares to the regular plans of other ISPs. In other words, are these ‘walled garden’ plans aimed towards people who would otherwise buy a regular data plan or are they aimed at people for whom the choice is a walled plan or no plan.

> In other words, are these ‘walled garden’ plans aimed towards people who would otherwise buy a regular data plan or are they aimed at people for whom the choice is a walled plan or no plan.

You say that like there's a hard line between them. No matter what it's "aimed at" it will hit people who want to save a buck and think they only need Facebook. Except that when there is a critical mass of people who no longer have the choice, Facebook's practices can become much more abusive because it becomes that much more difficult to leave. You have to convince everyone you know not only to use something else, but to use something that requires a more expensive data plan.

Moreover, consider what you're asking for, even if only lower income people subscribed. You want to take away the benefits of competition from the people with the least means. Talk about the poor get poorer.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#267

Post by spokewoke »

ivarious wrote: post #156

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 pr…

Charging for access to a website like this should be considered a form of piracy. The only appropriate response is a full IP range block.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#268

Post by Gracana »

rhino369 wrote: post #249
api wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a core misunderstanding around net neutrality. People see it as business-stifling regulation and its removal as deregulation. This is simply false. All last mile ISPs and wireless carriers are state-enforced oligopolies or monopolies. You can't build these things without some mix of federal, state, and local permission, and in many cases taxpayer funds helps subsidize the construction of these networks or tax…

Calling something a state-enforced oligopoly because you need permits is a huge stretch. In almost all jurisdictions a new company can apply for an ISP franchise. I have more choices for an ISP than I have choices for a cell phone OS. Should the government enforce app-store neutrality. I have less choices for search engines. How about search engine/adsense neutrality. The truth is net neutrality is both underbroad an…

> I have more choices for an ISP than I have choices for a cell phone OS.

That's lovely for you, but here's the whole picture: In the latest FCC Internet Access Services report, 13% of census blocks with housing units (that is, empty census blocks are not considered) have three or more broadband providers. 37% percent have only one option, and 21% have no provider at all. Having a choice is not the norm.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344499A1.p...

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#269

Post by 52-6F-62 »

leadingthenet wrote: post #222
bko wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are arguments against net neutrality. Check out the NoNetNeutrality subreddit if you're curious [0]. The most convincing argument IMO is that it hurts people's internet access by sniffling innovation. It happened in India when Facebook tried to provide free "basic internet" access to poor rural Indians [1]. It was blocked on the ground of net neutrality since although it would provide access to very useful site…

No, I don’t agree. It’s great that it failed.

I agree. The first thing I did when I heard about the limitations was question Facebook's intentions there.

I think their walled-garden approach, if it received an overwhelmingly positive or at least unquestioned reception, would have set an even more dangerous precedent.

Governments don't (AFAIK) set up internet services as social welfare for the poor in other countries. Facebook doesn't have any borders. Unless they're actively told to keep their rabid growth in check, they will just keep going.

Nothing directly against Facebook here, but I definitely think it's better that the poor and uneducated throughout the world are not normalized into a Facebook(TM) world of knowledge. We've seen what's happened with a much milder and more open situation in the United States (and elsewhere) quite recently.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#270

Post by BoorishBears »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #147
BoorishBears wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a problem with zero rating, the policy you describe prohibits it. I identify with the fundamental concept that "it's all just bits streaming" and that it could "stifle competition". But to me both are an oversimplification. "It's all just bits" except sometimes it's 100 megabytes of video a second and sometimes it's a 100kb HN post and delivering those things satisfactorily does not take the same levels…

> "It's all just bits" except sometimes it's 100 megabytes of video a second and sometimes it's a 100kb HN post and delivering those things satisfactorily does not take the same levels of resources. Don't strawman. "It's all just bits" is talking about the resources needed per bit .

It's not a strawman, the amount of resources X required to deliver at least Y bits per second is not a linear relationship.
Post reply on HN