Live data from Hacker News

Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

battleforthenet.com

301–310 of 388 posts

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#301

The battle is all but over, and Net Neutrality lost. Republicans control every branch of the government.

That's a false equivalence -- Not all Republicans want to end Net Neutrality.

However it is super duper lame that a ton of politicians blindly follow party lines. Sigh.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#302

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

The best argument I've heard is that Telecomms have spent X billion dollars of their own money building out infrastructure and NN makes their infrastructure public utility lines that they won't get compensated for.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do they actually block any of those things? What makes you think they would start blocking HN?

My understanding is that it's not that they're "blocked", it's that "you only can access what you pay for", which in this case is only those specific sites for which you pay to access. In other words, they don't "block" HN, they only provide access to Facebook, for example.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#305
post #192

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…

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…

That argument is really sound. In India. It doesn't really apply in developed countries where internet access is already present (or accessible to the majority).

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#306

The battle is all but over, and Net Neutrality lost. Republicans control every branch of the government.

Well, evidence suggests that the 'battle' may be difficult, but that the 'war' is on the side of NN people. It seems that the Reps. have been given the keys to the house and promptly shoved them up their nose and into their ears. Making the argument that the Reps. have any idea what they are doing is nonsense (even by 'normal' standards of the US Gov.). Though the Reps. are 'in control' they are evidently nincompoops. Yes, they have done some 'damaging' things, but their main policy goals and bills are coming out like wet farts.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#307
post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

net neutrality isn't an essential component, the invocation of Title II is. This is what I think the comment you are replying is trying to say. I don't know what the intent of net neutrality advocates is, but the invocation of Title II puts far too much power in the hands of a historically corrupt & repressive agency. Personally I am ambivalent about net neutrality. I, however, am deeply opposed to the existence of T…

> If advocates want net neutrality to be the governing policy of the internet why don't they advocate for specific legislation that does only that and doesn't give the FCC the ability to become a heavy handed regulator of ISPs? Do you have evidence that they are not advocating for proper legislation, or are you just saying this to baselessly discredit advocates of net neutrality? If I recall correctly, the invocation…

"are you just saying this to baselessly discredit advocates of net neutrality?"

Let's not jump the gun here, I clearly stated that I do not know the intentions of advocates. I haven't heard of any legislation in congress, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.

I don't trust the FCC, Aijit Pai is actively calling for removing power from the FCC. I trust this specific act of the current FCC chair, I don't trust the FCC.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#308

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.

It has also been shown that direct negative publicity has an even bigger effect. Editorials in local papers calling out your representative are effective. Getting on the local news protesting outside your reps office is effective. Going viral on social with some kind of #MYREPisOwnedByComcast #theinternetISfreedom or something has a huge effect. Most reps have a huge ego, they don't like being in a constant spotlight of negativity.

I think our biggest problem is that a lot of these issues don't have a leader a la the civil rights movement. Even Occupy, which built to some serious momentum, didn't have sustained vision and leadership to force the changes we might want. Plus, we (incl. me) are lazy and know it could be worse (NK, China) but we are slipping faster and faster and need to rally before it really is too late.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oddly, the UK does have net neutrality and you can get those app-specific data bundles in addition to universal access.

While the EU does have net neutrality, there are loop-holes for some forms of zero-rating (which is basically the same bullshit, just jumping through a few hoops). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating

Do NN proponents really believe that they could prevent the loopholes here?

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Okay, so if they do this, then the government should act. Preemptive regulation has all the downsides of regulation (eg lower investment) but potentially none of the benefits. This isn’t the kind of thing that will cause immediate, long-lasting, harm if a few ISPs explore this route before being shut down by the FCC or Congress.

The Internet providers are have already tried to do this. Couple that with the fact that Internet provider are generally a monopoly or duopoly then there is very real harm if only a few explore this route. The following is from Reddit 6 months ago, link at the bottom. The original comment has links supporting each claim.

>This dude's ridiculous.

>... if you look at the Internet that we had in 2015, we were not living in some digital dystopia. There was nothing broken about the marketplace in such a fundamental way that these Title II regulations were appropriate. >2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

>2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

>2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

>2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

>2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

>2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

>2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

>2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

>Like, dude. If you're gonna be a corrupt piece of shit, at least makes your lies more believable. This dude wants 'after-the-fact' regulation as opposed to preemptive regulation. Fucking news flash, you piece of shit. This is already after-the-fact.

>6 month late edit: Replaced Sprint with T-Mobile in the Google Wallet example.

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/69dnox/fcc_chie...

Post reply on HN