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

351–360 of 388 posts

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#351

Post by bko »

hobarrera wrote: post #305
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…

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).

For reference

> Key findings include the following: 10 percent of all Americans (34 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service. 39 percent of rural Americans (23 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. By contrast, only 4 percent of urban Americans lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband.

Majority do have broadband access but it’s still a problem for some

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progr...

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#353

Post by paul7986 »

arca_vorago wrote: post #221
paul7986 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What these comments are against net neutrality and are appearing on Hacker News? We are innovators that without neutrality us little guys/girls will suffer. Are all these comments fake/propaganda? I wouldn’t be surprised!

Cue discussion of sockpuppetry as a service (not joking, this is a real issue), given the FCC website comment drama, I wouldn't be surprised if the ISPs and the FCC have hired a "persona management" company to forum slide.

I mean look at how foreign governments are using social media to influence elections across the world. Fake news to fake comments to spread one's agenda.

Edit .. see this top story now on the homepage here about the New York states attorney investigating iNternet fakery https://medium.com/@AGSchneiderman/an-open-letter-to-the-fcc...

I still do not see why there isnt the same uproar as there was previously that stopped SOPA. What's different this time?

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#354

Post by uremog »

wildmusings wrote: post #274
rainbowmverse wrote: post #231

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.

"Our business is being regulated, so let's stop trying to make more money," said no business ever. A business is not going to stop making a good investment in their market just because there is regulation.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#355

Post by Avernar »

19guid wrote: post #117
neuterlize2 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Can't have that if there is no competitive ISP you can change to, if you don't like this NN violating ISP. > For example, I don't see how Netflix paying Comcast to zero-rate Netflix traffic is fundamentally different from Amazon contracting with ma…

> Can't have that if there is no competitive ISP you can change to, if you don't like this NN violating ISP. Sure, but that indicates a need for competition, not net neutrality. As I said in another comment, even if it prevents some of the worst abuses by incumbents, net neutrality regulation isn't going to create more competition. > This analogy breaks down immediately, because Comcast is already getting Netflix tra…

> what Canada does and require ISPs to sell Internet access at fixed wholesale rates

Actually, it's access to the last mile that's sold a fixed rates. The ISPs lease aggregated links to the last mile network depending on how much capacity they need. These ISPs have their own internet uplinks. There are ISPs that are just pure resellers but I'm not sure if this is regulated.

But even this had a net neutrality issue. The ISPs leasing out the last mile access started to throttle certain traffic (bittorrent and VPNs) for their customers AND the customers of the ISPs that leased the last mile.

Recently the fight was over access to the new FTTH connections.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#359

Post by imh »

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/21/fcc-net-neutrality...

Not only are they removing federal rules, they want to prevent states from making their own rules. That seems an extra special kind of awful. "Big Government is overstepping its bounds with regulation, so we're going to have big government step in and prevent local governments from making their own choices."

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#360

Post by austincheney »

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?

I would like regulation around online advertising and web analytics. I really get the impression that half the traffic on a modern commercial is the stuff you don't see, some of which is utterly malicious, and much of which is spyware.

That is what I would fix instead.

Post reply on HN