Live data from Hacker News

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

hackernoon.com

161–170 of 343 posts

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

#161

The centralization of the web is what worries me. I suppose non-neutral net can contribute to that, but even with a neutral net we've seen extraordinary centralization around a few major sites. Will neutrality really save us?

It might not be enough to create exactly the net you want. But yes, net neutrality is strictly better for decentralisation than the alternative. That is because neutrality creates a (somewhat) level playing field. Without it, Facebook could, theoretically, pay Comcast to slow down a new competitor that is just emerging. I say "theoretically", because such an action, if taken overtly, would probably still run afoul of…

They don't need to _slow_ anyone down. They just need to be faster or better connected with the end users with lesser connection drops etc. This all the major players already do with their private networks and CDNs and servers at a global PoPs. No startup without serious muscle can compete with that .

In the same vine major players also built and own dedicated DCs , hardware and networking equipment and locate it all over the world, new players can't compete possibly with that anyway.

There has never been any level playing field, New players are nimble and more risk friendly and do not have the baggage of existing users , older players have resource advantage and may need to choose between cannibalizing current users for new areas of growth or avoiding the segment all together.

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

#162
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But decreasing the average usage of customers, despite fixing maximum will mean profit. If somehow video sites get blocked, the average internet usage will very likely drop down many fold.

Pissing off customers has many failure points. Without video many people could just stick with their cellphone bandwidth and drop their cable plan entirely.

> Pissing off customers has many failure points. Without video many people could just stick with their cellphone bandwidth and drop their cable plan entirely.

Congratulations, you have just made anti Net Neutrality argument.

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

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

These services that drive massive increases in bandwidth demand are the services I’m talking about. The demand for Netflix, for example, has required investment on the part of ISPs to support. Most residential cable broadband systems weren’t designed with these kinds of constant bandwidth demands in mind. So Netflix gets to grow, while ISPs face massively increased investment, lest their networks will be overrun. Why shouldn’t Netflix have to contribute to the increased investment that they are benefitting from?

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

#164

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.

Netflix doesn’t hog the network. You do, by downloading Netflix data, but then again you are also paying for that data.

And Netflix is also paying for that data, albeit out of profits generated by you paying them.

Everyone pays for their connection to the notional Internet. Individual households tend to pay for all-you-can-eat of a nominal speed, which is fractionally provisioned upstream at whatever rate the ISP thinks that they won't get too many complaints about - typically 10:1. Medium and large companies either buy all-you-can-eat at less underprovisioned services, or pay for 95th percentile billing that is calculated monthly.

Really large corporations pay for interconnections to peering locations, and do a mix of paying for transit and swapping traffic with willing peers. Finally, backbone network companies buy or lease fiber, peering points and data centers and try to pay for as little transit as is economically feasible while shipping data around their networks at lower costs.

Everybody pays for what they use. The larger the scale, the lower the price per bit.

"Fast lanes" and "Zero-rate" traffic are purely subsidies and extortion. Rent-seeking.

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

#165
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pissing off customers has many failure points. Without video many people could just stick with their cellphone bandwidth and drop their cable plan entirely.

> Pissing off customers has many failure points. Without video many people could just stick with their cellphone bandwidth and drop their cable plan entirely. Congratulations, you have just made anti Net Neutrality argument.

Could you expand on this a bit? I haven't heard this argument, and I just listened to a pretty long conversation with FCC Chairman Pai (on the Fifth Column podcast, if you're interested). His argument was that it will reduce the burden on small ISPs, which would then pop up everywhere, creating a pro-consumer competitive market. (Which is either magical thinking or just disingenuous, but that was his argument, such as it was.)

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

#166

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.

I think the biggest misconception among net neutrality sceptics is the assumption that bandwidth in general is a limited resource: It's not. The problem with 'others slowing down the internet' is usually on the last mile and it's cable providers oversubscribing this shared medium.

> The problem with 'others slowing down the internet' is usually on the last mile and it's cable providers oversubscribing this shared medium

This sounds correct, but can you point me toward some additional info?

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

#167
post #142

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.

If a ISP's customer wants to spend 100% of their bandwidth talking to netflix (or anybody else), that's their business. Netflix is sending that data only because the ISP's customer's asked for it . > autobahn An ISP isn't a shared commons. It's offering a service to transit data to/from other hosts on the internet, usually metered at either a fixed rate per unit time, or by the total carriage "weight" (bandwidth). Co…

Sure, if the customer's contract says that their packets need to all be treated with equal priority. But the whole point in repealing net-neutrality is to allow for contracts which don't need to treat all packets with equal priority. In that case the ISP isn't violating the contract and the customer wanting to spend %100 of their bandwidth talking to netflix for instance is the ISP's business too.

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

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

These services that drive massive increases in bandwidth demand are the services I’m talking about. The demand for Netflix, for example, has required investment on the part of ISPs to support. Most residential cable broadband systems weren’t designed with these kinds of constant bandwidth demands in mind. So Netflix gets to grow, while ISPs face massively increased investment, lest their networks will be overrun. Why…

> The demand for Netflix, for example, has required investment on the part of ISPs to support.

So the ISP were overselling bandwidth?

> Why shouldn’t Netflix have to contribute to the increased investment that they are benefitting from?

They do. Netflix give CDN boxes to ISPs for free. They contribute by saving the ISPs all that external bandwidth (which is what they oversell).

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

#169

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.

I know you don't necessarily mean it this way but this sounds a lot like the cable companies' argument that it's "unfair" that the likes of Netflix can "push" all this data onto their network without paying.

Well someone is paying: the customer. Netflix isn't hogging anything. So ISPs want to double-dip and get paid at both ends but really what they want to do is protect their ailing TV businesses. It's naked protectionism, nothing more.

So to your comment: if customers can't get all this Netflix data then the ISPs have lied to them about the capacity of the connections they've sold. Or they're not charging enough (heh).

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

#170
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a ISP's customer wants to spend 100% of their bandwidth talking to netflix (or anybody else), that's their business. Netflix is sending that data only because the ISP's customer's asked for it . > autobahn An ISP isn't a shared commons. It's offering a service to transit data to/from other hosts on the internet, usually metered at either a fixed rate per unit time, or by the total carriage "weight" (bandwidth). Co…

Sure, if the customer's contract says that their packets need to all be treated with equal priority. But the whole point in repealing net-neutrality is to allow for contracts which don't need to treat all packets with equal priority. In that case the ISP isn't violating the contract and the customer wanting to spend %100 of their bandwidth talking to netflix for instance is the ISP's business too.

> In that case the ISP isn't violating the contract and the customer wanting to spend %100 of their bandwidth talking to netflix for instance is the ISP's business too

That's garbage. I don't need my ISP shaking down the content business to be able to put their own content up front while requiring payment from others for equal level treatment.

Taxpayers built this infrastructure and there are still regional broadband monopolies all over the place. It's entirely anti-consumer. We built the damned thing in the first place with the agreement there would be sufficient service. Fact is, our service is lousy, even in many dense urban areas!

We should stand up together and vote this anti-NN crap down, regardless of whether it takes 2 weeks or 2 years.

Post reply on HN