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

Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 250 posts

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#191

Post by komali2 »

deadmik3 wrote: post #180
komali2 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't allowed to bury cat5 in your neighborhood without government approval, and they'd tell you to just lease time off Comcast lines. What will you connect your cat5 cable to?

Plug your router into your neighbor's, and everyone else that wants to join your new ISP. I don't see the difficulty; it's just as easy as starting a new eBay site and getting people to sign up

False equivalence. Not only does eBay have actual alternatives, the start up cost is much higher for a new ISP.

Startup cost is not equivalent to "getting customers" cost. I can launch eBay 2 tomorrow, I cannot do that for Comcast2.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#192

Post by komali2 »

deadmik3 wrote: post #188
wvenable wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can create an ISP and then you have to work to get people to sign up. You can create a eBay site and then you have to work to get people to sign up. And your argument is the hard part of making an eBay site is signing people up and hand-wave over the build part of both these things? Apples to Spaceships comparison.

Well, the argument is that if you don't like eBay it's easy to just go make your own. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just assuming that part of "making your own" is getting the other users to sign up, since an auction site with no one to bid isn't very useful. So it's the same with ISPs: if you don't like it just make your own.

You cannot make your own ISP. You can make your own eBay.

There is no competition for Comcast, there is for eBay. It appears your very premise is flawed but I welcome you to demonstrate why this isn't true.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#193

Post by rule_follower »

uses wrote: post #178

Where did this new anti-NN talking point come from about how, if we're going to have net neutrality then we also need to allow people to be terrible on social media without taking responsibility for it? I swear I've seen this so many times in the past few months, including multiple comments in this thread. If moderation of corporate software platforms is an important issue for you, great, but surely you can see the d…

>allow people to be terrible on social media without taking responsibility for it?

This is a euphemism for banning users and a misrepresentation of the the points I have seen, which is that it is hypocritical to seek government safeguards against ISPs favoring/disfavoring traffic/content depending on the source while clamoring for just that from giant internet media corporations

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#194

Post by tzs »

danjoc wrote: post #89
EpiphanyMachine wrote: post #2

The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other.…

>The system seems broken when When it does stuff you disagree with personally. That's a pretty universal feeling. While you may get plenty of internet points from your friends that agree with you, you have to realize, you are the one with the unpopular opinion this time. >50% of the population Counting illegals. 22 states isn't 50% either. This is the "not my president" argument all over again. The people won. ISPs w…

> It's time FAANG pays their share for video streaming bandwidth

They do pay their share.

In general, when party X and party Y communicate on the internet, they both pay a service provide (their ISP) for a connection to the internet backbone. That payment to their ISP fully pays for the costs of the data X and Y send to or receive from the internet (or their ISP won't stay in business for long).

What you are calling "internet freedom" is party X's ISP saying it won't allow X to communicate with Y unless Y also pays X's ISP, even though X is already paying X's ISP for the bandwidth X is using with Y.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#195

Post by rule_follower »

School-Cotton wrote: post #65
asdkhadsj wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think your water company should pick and choose? How about your electric company? Maybe they can charge you a higher electric rate during Game of Thrones because they know you want your power more than normal then? etc I don't want a company picking and choosing which bytes of mine are fast or slow. I'm buying byte containers, their job is to ship them. I dictate how fast, and who it gets shipped to. End of de…

Actually, electric companies already do charge higher rates at different times when demand is higher.

But they don't shut off your power because they do not like the type of business you run or you personally.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#197

Post by wvenable »

deadmik3 wrote: post #188
wvenable wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can create an ISP and then you have to work to get people to sign up. You can create a eBay site and then you have to work to get people to sign up. And your argument is the hard part of making an eBay site is signing people up and hand-wave over the build part of both these things? Apples to Spaceships comparison.

Well, the argument is that if you don't like eBay it's easy to just go make your own. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just assuming that part of "making your own" is getting the other users to sign up, since an auction site with no one to bid isn't very useful. So it's the same with ISPs: if you don't like it just make your own.

> Well, the argument is that if you don't like eBay it's easy to just go make your own.

The argument isn't that it's easy, the argument is that it's possible. There is no guarantee of success but you can try. Why even start Facebook when we already have Myspace?

There are actual physical impediments to building your own ISP and natural monopolies involved. By comparison, just a lot of people using something doesn't make it monopoly.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#198

Post by deadmik3 »

komali2 wrote: post #191
deadmik3 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plug your router into your neighbor's, and everyone else that wants to join your new ISP. I don't see the difficulty; it's just as easy as starting a new eBay site and getting people to sign up

False equivalence. Not only does eBay have actual alternatives, the start up cost is much higher for a new ISP. Startup cost is not equivalent to "getting customers" cost. I can launch eBay 2 tomorrow, I cannot do that for Comcast2.

But what makes eBay eBay isn't their startup cost, it's the millions of people buying and selling items that make it a usable service instead of just one guy posting pictures of his funko pops for sale.

So yeah, I could launch ebay2 tomorrow but it would just be me on there. I could actually do that with Comcast2 as well, just by turning on a computer in my house but if it's not connected to anything else it's about as useless as the ebay2 running on it.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#199

Post by eric_h »

RIMR wrote: post #174
eric_h wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll be surprised if it's still around in 10 years. I agree that facebook the site, in its current form, is unlikely to exist in 10 years. I highly doubt that facebook the company is going anywhere in that time frame.

Then what even is the definition of "Facebook" if the entire business model can collapse and you still consider it to exist just because they have some money left somewhere and can continue being a business?

A company that doesn’t anticipate the end of a given revenue stream does a disservice to its shareholders.

Facebook is not its only web property and it will still have hooks in a majority of internet users for some time in aggregate by improving other properties and by acquiring new ones.

Does the Microsoft of 10 years ago look like the Microsoft of today?

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#200

Post by gervase »

phkahler wrote: post #152
peterwwillis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came here to say the opposite. The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. This is the system working for the people. Without the ability or interest from the states to push back against the federal government's decrees, we would be stuck with an authoritarian nation. Currently, trying to pass meaningful legislation is like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a pinhole…

>> The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. I wonder how many of those states made laws forbidding or working against municipal broadband.

Here is a list of all 22 states that filed, with links to their local roadblocks to municipal broadband (if any):

California : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc...

Connecticut

D. C.

Delaware

Hawaii

Illinois

Iowa

Kentucky

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc...

Mississippi

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc...

Oregon

Pennsylvania : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc...

Rhode Island

Vermont

Virginia : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc...

Washington : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc...

Post reply on HN