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

AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 281 posts

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#221

Post by Toboe »

freedomben wrote: post #118
omg_ketchup wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should treat the internet like they treat electricity. It doesn't matter if you're using it for a hair dryer or a work light or to charge your phone- you get it the same as everyone else for the same price. Why aren't we de-regulating power companies too?

Do you also extend this to allow for pay-for-what-you-use? I don't disagree with charging people more for how much they use, but a lot of net neutrality proponents lose their minds at the suggestion that somebody who uses 5 GB a month should pay less than the kid streaming 10 TB of torrents every month.

Do you mean net neutral pay-for-what-you-use?

I.e.

You can buy 5GB volume. Everything you do counts against it.

Or do you mean selective pay-for-what-you-use-and-your-ISP-doesn't-prefer?

I.e.

You can buy 5GB, the ISP chooses what does and doesn't count against that.

From NN point of view: The former is fine. The latter isn't. (The whole king-maker problems)

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#222

Post by jerkstate »

comex wrote: post #196
jerkstate wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, that article completely illustrates what I'm talking about. > Who paid for the delivery of all this on-net traffic, then? The customers. In Level 3's case, this means that CDN customers like Netflix would pay Level 3, while Comcast's cable modem subscribers would pay Comcast. Very simple, very clean, and according to Level 3 now, this is the way the Internet should be connected. > But after winning the Netfli…

What you say is true. But the counterarguments are: - At least according to Level3, it was not standard practice in the industry to charge for peering (not transit - the final destination for the packets was in Comcast's network), regardless of traffic ratios. - You could say that it should be standard practice, but that would be unfortunate because Comcast effectively has a monopoly on fast connections to its own cu…

Yes, we could argue back and forth about what is fair and what is standard. But what did the contract, agreed to by both parties, say? Was Level3 in the wrong to sell Netflix a product that they could not deliver without violating their prior contract with Comcast?

I agree it sucks to be a consumer and get shafted by these shitty deals, but let's at least be honest about how we got here and what the powers that be are actually gunning for.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#223

Post by thomastjeffery »

jknz wrote: post #214

Dear AG, I am wondering if net neutrality should not be enforced by international trade agreements, such as TAFTA and others. Net neutrality means that European ISPs cannot slow down the internet from American Companies and vice versa. What Pai is proposing will give frightening ideas to foreign ISPs. Ask Facebook a cut of its ads or slow down its traffic. Ask Apple a cut of app purchases, or slow down downloads from…

Net neutrality only concerns edge providers, which do not deal with international data transfer.

Net neutrality rules prevent ISPs from changing their customer's traffic, and their customers are not international.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#224

Post by thomastjeffery »

vinylkey wrote: post #157

Do know of any resources that explain Net Neutrality in a non-partisan, clear, concise manner? My dad is under the impression that Net Neutrality is bad because "the government has no business with the Internet." I'd like to provide him with some good information to try to sway his mind, but most simple explanations I can find are comedic in nature (John Oliver, The Oatmeal webcomic), or are from a "liberal source."…

You and I seem have the same general problem: family members influenced by "right-wing" media that have been convinced to hate anything to do with "liberals", without actually defining who or what a "liberal" is.

On top of that, both of my parents have been conditioned to reject anything remotely vulgar, so friendly comedy like John Oliver simply promotes their biases rather than breaking the ice.

It's a frustrating problem, and I have no idea how to approach it.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#225

Post by robertpateii »

rsync wrote: post #201
AGSchneiderman wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m glad you asked – this is a very important question. In short, the regulation is needed to protect against ISPs prioritizing their profits over their consumers, which is something we have seen in the past where regulations were lacking. As a preliminary matter, it’s important to recognize that net neutrality principles and protections in different forms have actually been around since 2005 and even earlier. So the…

"In short, the regulation is needed to protect against ISPs prioritizing their profits over their consumers" It's not encouraging to see that your broad, summary statement is nonsensical. A for-profit business firm prioritizes their profits over their consumers by definition. I am sympathetic to the cause of net neutrality but surely you can do better than this ...

It's not nonsensical, but it does imply some assumptions about a free market and the social contract.

Governments exist to benefit their citzens. A free market is a great benefit thanks to competition forcing out businesses that don't prioritize their consumers.

This assumes perfect competition though and it assumes a lot of things that are not realistic such as there being no barriers to entering a market. Clearly there are massive barriers to becoming a new ISPs so some non-zero amount of regulation is reasonable.

tl;dr: It's reasonable for a captialist government to intervene when the free market fails to incentivize businesses to benefit citizens.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#226

Post by rsync »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #218
rsync wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In short, the regulation is needed to protect against ISPs prioritizing their profits over their consumers" It's not encouraging to see that your broad, summary statement is nonsensical. A for-profit business firm prioritizes their profits over their consumers by definition. I am sympathetic to the cause of net neutrality but surely you can do better than this ...

Internet is a utility, and it is controlled predominantly by 6 companies. There is simply not enough competition to rely on the free market to keep net neutrality as a fiscal priority. Until the oligopoly is broken up, and everyone has competitive access to the internet, we need some way to ensure that net neutrality happens. Without net neutrality, businesses using the internet itself , and even free nonprofit servi…

"There is simply not enough competition to rely on the free market to keep net neutrality as a fiscal priority."

You're answering a question I didn't pose.

I wasn't even specifically speaking about net neutrality - something I am sympathetic to.

I was lamenting the fact that the level of discourse is lower than I'd hope it to be. Knee jerk "that guys not on my team" responses aren't helping to encourage me.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#228

Post by thomastjeffery »

vinylkey wrote: post #157

Do know of any resources that explain Net Neutrality in a non-partisan, clear, concise manner? My dad is under the impression that Net Neutrality is bad because "the government has no business with the Internet." I'd like to provide him with some good information to try to sway his mind, but most simple explanations I can find are comedic in nature (John Oliver, The Oatmeal webcomic), or are from a "liberal source."…

I think the simplest way to explain the need for net neutrality is to point out these two things:

1. ISPs are currently an oligopoly that would be the only beneficiaries to a non-neutral internet. Customers can't choose between ISPs, so we need to make sure that the ISPs don't hurt their customers.

2. The internet is an economy, and a non-neutral internet would directly prevent competition.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#230

Post by allnash »

Guys Isn't it about time we refer to some other countries in the world for some reference point especially when our nation's media is polluted by Fake News, Fake Comments and #FakeWhatNot?

For example in INDIA. India's TRAI is trying really hard to ensure Freedom is maintained on the "Service" of Internet itself.

Referring to this Wiki Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_India

Section "2016"

TRAI rules in favor of Net Neutrality[edit] The TRAI on 8 February 2016 barred telecom service providers from charging differential rates for data services, thus prohibiting Facebook’s Free Basics and Airtel Zero platform by Airtel in their present form. (Airtel was the largest Tel. Provider in 2016.)[62]

In their latest ruling,[9] they have stipulated that:

1. No service provider can offer or charge discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content. 2. No service provider shall enter into any arrangement, agreement or contract, by whatever name called, with any person, natural or legal, that the effect of discriminatory tariffs for data services being offered or charged by the service provider for the purpose of evading the prohibition in this regulation. 3. Reduced tariff for accessing or providing emergency services, or at times of public emergency has been permitted. 4. Financial disincentives for contravention of the regulation have also been specified.

@AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government, can we use some of these points to our favor?

Capitalism is "Great"! but the powers vouching for "it" need to know that it CAN NOT go against the Constitution of the United States of America and the rights of Americans.

Post reply on HN