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

341–350 of 388 posts

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#341

Post by LoonyBalloony »

mikeash wrote: post #246
amelius wrote: post #220

Apparently, it's quite difficult to maintain net neutrality, yet its advantages to the average citizen seem enormous. Therefore, shouldn't we fix something else instead? Like the way these laws are established?

"Fix something else" is right on, but "instead" is highly problematic. We can try to fix multiple things. The root of this problem and many others is that Congress and the executive are corrupt and have no particular interest in doing their job properly. Much of that stems from a bad electoral system. Fixing that is hugely important and would be highly useful. However, that fix is likely to take a long time. Certainl…

"bad electoral system."

First Past The Post Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Range Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig

Single Transferable Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#343

Post by Avernar »

patrickaljord wrote: post #178
neuterlize wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>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. No, that's not how business work. If customers are not happy with a service they can shop elsewhere. The business is not forced by government to improve its infrastructure, just by customers pressure. The fact that some places only have one ISP is because government over…

> The fact that some places only have one ISP is because government over-regulate right to pass and instal fiber.

Limiting how many companies can dig up the streets is a good thing. Imagine if every delivery company wanted to pave a road to your house.

Where the government screwed up is not making the last mile common to all ISPs.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#344

Post by idibidiart »

kadenshep wrote: post #326
idibidiart wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their biggest and most lucrative service is search. What if I click a link in google's search result and my ISP refuses to take me there? Or does it work differently?

Not really google's problem. You've done what they wanted you to do. Search! The problem will most likely exist on any other search engine at that point -- if you care to use them in the first place.

I don't buy that it isn't be there problem. The UX will be broke. What good is a search engine if I can't get anywhere.

Just because you're sure of your opinion, it doesn't mean it's correct Yet you assert ... :)

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#345

Post by idibidiart »

atonse wrote: post #290
idibidiart wrote: post #264

Why isn't Google fighting this? They have a backup plan?

More and more we need to stop thinking of a lot of these SV giants as some kinds of liberal bastions that care about the internet and free speech. They are fortune 500 companies that ONLY care about their bottom line. Every now and then, the bottom line accidentally aligns with the public good (like spectrum auctions).

It should align, and I'm surprised it doesn't seem to be aligned, or they see it as an opportunity to be an ISP themselves.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#346

Post by Avernar »

kelnos wrote: post #137
19guid wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Even if it prevents some of the worst abuses by incumbents, net neutrality regulation isn't going to create more competition. In fact, if net neutrality regulation creates additional compliance costs it might actually reduce competition by increasing the barriers to entry for new ISPs. 2. I think most people would agree that the Internet should generally remain a level playing field for all businesses. However, it…

> 1. Even if it prevents some of the worst abuses by incumbents, net neutrality regulation isn't going to create more competition. Agreed, but net neutrality regulation never claimed it would. The concept of net neutrality accepts the fact that we do not (and cannot) have a free, competitive market for internet access, and tries to ensure that incumbents do not engage in anti-consumer practices that they wouldn't be…

> We can't. It is absolutely not in the public's interest to allow just anyone to dig up roadsides and bury cable

Yes you can. Have the municipality be the one responsible for running fiber from reaidences to common access points. The the ISPs all have equal access and you can change ISPs very easy.

But again, politics and encumbent ISPs will prevent this.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#347

Post by cobbzilla »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #114
cobbzilla wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "NN regulations" that the FCC adopted specifically classified Internet services as Title II "telecommunication services", subject to 1930s-style telecom regulations. Yes, these are "Ma Bell" style regulations. I presume you don't believe in the existence of selective enforcement in industries where the government holds massive regulatory power? Why does it seem somehow that the most powerful incumbents are never…

> Pai merely proposes ... This is met with furious uproar His proposal would enable ISPs to make access to some content slower, or more expensive, than others. His proposal does nothing to resolve existing broadband monopolies. Many people like the way the internet works today and do not want Pai's policies to pass. We don't want more silos or limited access to content. People are making their voices heard because th…

Do you not fear that regulatory capture would leave us with the worst of both worlds?

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#348

Post by mikeash »

amelius wrote: post #329
mikeash wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Fix something else" is right on, but "instead" is highly problematic. We can try to fix multiple things. The root of this problem and many others is that Congress and the executive are corrupt and have no particular interest in doing their job properly. Much of that stems from a bad electoral system. Fixing that is hugely important and would be highly useful. However, that fix is likely to take a long time. Certainl…

Yeah, but after fixing the "smaller" issues, we tend to forget about the bigger issues. Also, we lose leverage, and the problem quickly becomes abstract.

I don't see this happening at all. The smaller issues help people understand the importance of the bigger ones.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#349

Post by StreamBright »

Danihan wrote: post #322
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…

They also aren't a democracy, so not really relevant.

What does the system of government has to do with what is relevant to an argument like this?

China is not a democracy so it is irrelevant that they are the leading economy on the planet?

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#350

Post by rhino369 »

neuterlize wrote: post #259
rhino369 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> doesn't allow any paid prioritization, even if such prioritization isn't anti-competitive. Please give an example of paid prioritization that isn't anti-competitive.

Auction-based prioritization of bandwidth. Something akin to bitcoin transaction fees. If Netflix wants to pay extra so they stream video in real time that makes sense.

Notably, this is more or less how the internet already works. Content Distribution Networks pay for access to ISP local networks, which gives them a fast lane to customers. It's how virtually all content is already distributed.

Post reply on HN