Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

hackernoon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 343 posts

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#121

Post by simonh »

olegkikin wrote: post #114
keypress wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm up for net neutrality, but what do you about one or two pigs hogging the network? This quotes netflix as having 37% of traffic in N.A. http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-... It's like you build an autobahn for everyone, and then one monster haulage company moves in and dominates the road, and the road isn't really as useful as envisaged.

Doesn't Netflix pay for its bandwidth?

Yes it does. Meanwhile the end user pays for the bandwidth they get to use. Whether that’s to watch YouTube, Netflix or send email. It’s all already been paid for.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#122

Post by sparkie »

keypress wrote: post #100
bufferoverflow wrote: post #86

Every social media website is dominated by people supporting net neutrality. I don't even remember seeing an opposing opinion, except from Trump's government. Maybe I'm living in some weird bubble, but it seems to me the argument is really not an argument, but an artificially created nonsense.

I'm up for net neutrality, but what do you about one or two pigs hogging the network? This quotes netflix as having 37% of traffic in N.A. http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-... It's like you build an autobahn for everyone, and then one monster haulage company moves in and dominates the road, and the road isn't really as useful as envisaged.

You take the several billion dollars you're overcharging your customers and you improve the infrastructure so that supplying the bandwidth to the services that your customers demand is not a problem anymore.

Or you could just complain and ask for more money, whilst not improving anything.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#123

Post by simonh »

Danihan wrote: post #117
eecc wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does “government price control” relate to simply forbidding double sale? All NN does is to disallow ISP from tiering the internet and double dipping on both sides of the network. Imagine if you had to pay a different subscription to call only family, another also for friends, anyone on the Bell directory, anyone on other directories, businesses. You’d imagine telephones would have remained a novelty to this day

Why should ISPs be disallowed from charging what they like for the product they sell? That's the entire point of a free market. I understand the issues inherent in leasing the lines, but fundamentally companies should be able to price their offerings as they wish. There simply needs to be fewer barriers to entry for new ISPs to come into the market.

They’ve already sold it to the consumer. If I pay an ISP for X bandwidth and Y latency, then decide I want to use that to watch Netflix, the ISP has no business interfering with my use of the Netflix service. It isn’t Netflix traffic, it’s my traffic which I’ve already paid the ISP for.

This isn’t about protecting Netflix, it’s about protecting the consumers right to use the product they bought - internet bandwidth - for what they choose without having that choice interfered with or constrained by back room extortion rackets. If the ISP wants to set up a special fast lane for my connection to this or that service, they talk to me. Not Netflix, or anyone else.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#124

Post by Danihan »

vermilingua wrote: post #119
Danihan wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But all network traffic is not the same. So why should it be treated as if it is?

All network traffic is the same. As far as an ISP should be concerned, it's all just bits flowing through a wire. When they start characterizing those bits, net neutrality is violated.

You may want it to be the same... or you may want for it to be treated as if it's the same, but all network traffic is not the same. There are all sorts of classifications.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#125

Post by merb »

Danihan wrote: post #117
eecc wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does “government price control” relate to simply forbidding double sale? All NN does is to disallow ISP from tiering the internet and double dipping on both sides of the network. Imagine if you had to pay a different subscription to call only family, another also for friends, anyone on the Bell directory, anyone on other directories, businesses. You’d imagine telephones would have remained a novelty to this day

Why should ISPs be disallowed from charging what they like for the product they sell? That's the entire point of a free market. I understand the issues inherent in leasing the lines, but fundamentally companies should be able to price their offerings as they wish. There simply needs to be fewer barriers to entry for new ISPs to come into the market.

> That's the entire point of a free market.

what you describe can't exist in the free market. else you would either need to allow that anybody can dig holes to build a network or you need to oust the network from the ISPs and sell them to anybody who wants to resell it for common rates. no country that I'm aware of supports any of the above.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#126

Post by Danihan »

simonh wrote: post #123
Danihan wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should ISPs be disallowed from charging what they like for the product they sell? That's the entire point of a free market. I understand the issues inherent in leasing the lines, but fundamentally companies should be able to price their offerings as they wish. There simply needs to be fewer barriers to entry for new ISPs to come into the market.

They’ve already sold it to the consumer. If I pay an ISP for X bandwidth and Y latency, then decide I want to use that to watch Netflix, the ISP has no business interfering with my use of the Netflix service. It isn’t Netflix traffic, it’s my traffic which I’ve already paid the ISP for. This isn’t about protecting Netflix, it’s about protecting the consumers right to use the product they bought - internet bandwidth -…

Supermarkets don't have government price controls, and they also have very little government intervention. Yet I assume you don't worry about "back room extortion rackets" occurring with the pricing there.

This is because there is a healthy amount of competition with supermarkets, something the ISP market lacks.

Again, it comes down to lowering barriers of entry for new ISPs, rather than falsely labeling all network traffic the same, and pretending that solves a problem.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#127

Post by Danihan »

merb wrote: post #125
Danihan wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should ISPs be disallowed from charging what they like for the product they sell? That's the entire point of a free market. I understand the issues inherent in leasing the lines, but fundamentally companies should be able to price their offerings as they wish. There simply needs to be fewer barriers to entry for new ISPs to come into the market.

> That's the entire point of a free market. what you describe can't exist in the free market. else you would either need to allow that anybody can dig holes to build a network or you need to oust the network from the ISPs and sell them to anybody who wants to resell it for common rates. no country that I'm aware of supports any of the above.

What is wrong with the government owning the lines, and a standardized process for any ISP to lease and maintain said lines?

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#128

Post by nkristoffersen »

downandout wrote: post #109
keypress wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm up for net neutrality, but what do you about one or two pigs hogging the network? This quotes netflix as having 37% of traffic in N.A. http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-... It's like you build an autobahn for everyone, and then one monster haulage company moves in and dominates the road, and the road isn't really as useful as envisaged.

Everyone worries about slippery slopes, but I think that limits should exist. Perhaps if you are consuming more than 10% of Internet’s bandwidth, you should have to pay some kind of tax to ISP’s, and those funds should then be required to be reinvested in the network to make it more reliable or increase bandwidth. That seems like it would be an all-around win.

Bandwidth isn't free. You pay for it, I pay for it, Google pays for it, Netflix pays for it, everyone pays for it.

Bandwidth is what we pay for. Net neutrality does not mean we get bandwidth for free. People who use more bandwidth have to buy more bandwidth already.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#129

Post by Sabinus »

Danihan wrote: post #124
vermilingua wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All network traffic is the same. As far as an ISP should be concerned, it's all just bits flowing through a wire. When they start characterizing those bits, net neutrality is violated.

You may want it to be the same... or you may want for it to be treated as if it's the same, but all network traffic is not the same. There are all sorts of classifications.

There may be many different uses for those by bits by applications, sent via different ordering schemes (TCP etc) but the fact remains that internet consumers pay and should continue for the connection itself, not what goes down that connection.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#130

Post by makomk »

eecc wrote: post #111
Danihan wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could just be against government price controls in general..

How does “government price control” relate to simply forbidding double sale? All NN does is to disallow ISP from tiering the internet and double dipping on both sides of the network. Imagine if you had to pay a different subscription to call only family, another also for friends, anyone on the Bell directory, anyone on other directories, businesses. You’d imagine telephones would have remained a novelty to this day

One of the examples net neutrality proponents have been pointing to in order to justify it is Vodafone Australia's packages allowing customers to add unlimited usage of various groups of services on top of the bandwidth they get in their mobile internet plans. There are hugely popular viral tweets claiming this is the terrifying future of American internet access if net neutrality is repealed. That's not simply preventing double dipping on both sides of the network, it's controlling what products ISPs are allowed to sell consumers and how they can price that internet access.
Post reply on HN