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

We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 275 posts

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#71

Post by Houshalter »

raverbashing wrote: post #38
pvnick wrote: post #20

I consider everybody here very smart. In many cases smarter than myself. Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality? Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide. Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch s…

How's the 'invisible hand' working for healthcare again? I'm very against government regulation, but something it's necessary.

You can just cherry pick examples unless you can explain how it's analogous. For example, healthcare suffers from natural monopolies to an extent. Hospitals don't really have to compete with each other, and it's really difficult to build a new hospital. The same principle applies to telecommunications.

On the other hand, healthcare is heavily regulated and hardly a free market, so it's pretty terrible comparison in that aspect.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#72

Post by belorn »

blhack wrote: post #36
aragot wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehm, but Google Fiber doesn't respect net neutrality, see multiple posts on HN about them forbidding servers on the network...

That has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Forbidding servers on their network is a completely rational stance for them to take. Do you also get upset at "all-you-can-eat" buffets when they don't let you fill a barrel full of food to take home and eat later?

I do get upset if the commercial say "up to 20 different kind of food, and all-you-can-eat", but during lunch rush it is just a couple of carrots that looks half moldy.

One aspect of net neutrality is advertizement laws and clear communication between the commercial entity and the consumer. A restaurant can't just say that "its up to!" and give you a carrot when you paid $50 for a buffet, complaining that their capacity to make food is full.

If the network connection Google want to sell has direct limitation to them, Google should be legally bound to make sure the consumer is aware before a contract is signed. That is normally a basic consumer protection law in most markets, and the ISP market is just lagging behind.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#73

Post by nknighthb »

argumentum wrote: post #62
djur wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose to distribute access to fiber networks laid in public land, then? Are the new competitors in these markets going to make individual contracts with every property owner they come in contact with, too?

I don't know .. that's something to be debated, however it does impinge on my individual freedom if my government decides who can wire what to my house. I did not personally agree to grant any corporation such a right. Until then, arguments that net neutrality violates the freedom of the ISPs don't hold up, as any state-enforced monopolies must be considered at least partially public property.

It's something that has been debated. Do you think telecoms and utilities sprang into existence fully-formed world-wide the day you were born? These issues are not new, they date back centuries.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#74

Post by nightcracker »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #4
maaku wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes that amusing?

Seriously? Because they're demanding the freedom of the telcos be overridden in favor of our own personal interests.

I strongly am in favor of freedom, but not a fully free market. And exactly for reasons like this: a fully free market destroys freedom.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#75

Post by argumentum »

blhack wrote: post #32
pvnick wrote: post #20

I consider everybody here very smart. In many cases smarter than myself. Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality? Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide. Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch s…

Because the telcos are currently enjoying a "natural monopoly". The cost of entry to become a telco is so high, that normal competitive forces do not apply. In situations like this, one role of government is to regulate these natural monopolies to protect citizens. One such regulation, for instance, is that the power company cannot shut off your power in the middle of winter in Minnesota without fulfilling some prett…

Not at all "natural". The cost is so high partially due to special agreements between these corporations and governments, from local agreements to lay down fiber, to national agreements regarding the use of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#76

Post by zobzu »

wyager wrote: post #25
nostromo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most rights are a balancing act. In this case, the freedom of the ISP is contrary to the freedom of the subscriber, so whose freedom is supreme? I could understand opposition to net neutrality if there were competition in the ISP market. However, I have no choice but to use Comcast, so the idea that they can decide what sites I visit and how fast they are is very scary.

Bullshit. The "freedom" of the subscriber is not on the line. The subscriber can do as they wish. I can't go into a hotel and claim I have the "freedom" to use my room as a distillery just because I paid for the room. The ISP can also regulate bandwidth as they wish. They're a company, not a public organization (depending on where you live). If you don't like it, choose another ISP. If you can't choose another ISP, w…

so you say people will work to lay fiber everywhere til they can have a neutral internet?

Oh yeah, right, that'll happen because it's totally possible!

Freedom of saying this ain't right. Freedom of making laws against it. Freedom to steal. Freedom to pirate servers. Extend the thinking far enough til you get to freedom to kill people. Exactly the same thinking.

This circular argument is useless. Freedom without means to limit and enforce it is no freedom at all.

It's obvious that for the general good, there should be net neutrality. If you make it impossible (laying fiber in all the country from scratch is impossible), this is wrong.

Just like killing people or stealing is wrong.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#77

Post by akadien »

jarjoura wrote: post #59

IMHO, this isn't about Netflix, YouTube, or even Amazon having to pay for higher tiered access to customers. They have the deep pockets and smart lawyers to construct contracts that work out for them in the end. So I see that as the same grumpy story as California and New York forcing Amazon to collect sales tax. BUT, because this does force deals to be crafted behind closed doors, they will turn out looking a lot li…

> we are asking to have the most expensive internet on the planet

Indeed, it will be unfortunate for the United States when internet services are akin to healthcare and prescription drugs.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#78

Post by bowlofpetunias »

pvnick wrote: post #20

I consider everybody here very smart. In many cases smarter than myself. Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality? Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide. Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch s…

Consumers don't decide shit. Consumers are people that buy stuff, nothing more. The people that decide are called citizens or "voters".

(Also, Google is probably one of the worst examples imaginable for arguing the market should make such decisions.)

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#79

Post by argumentum »

nknighthb wrote: post #73
argumentum wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know .. that's something to be debated, however it does impinge on my individual freedom if my government decides who can wire what to my house. I did not personally agree to grant any corporation such a right. Until then, arguments that net neutrality violates the freedom of the ISPs don't hold up, as any state-enforced monopolies must be considered at least partially public property.

It's something that has been debated. Do you think telecoms and utilities sprang into existence fully-formed world-wide the day you were born? These issues are not new, they date back centuries .

Then how can you consider these companies to be truly private?

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#80

Post by dippyskoodlez »

hayksaakian wrote: post #69
dippyskoodlez wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Google Fiber, in markets where it's available, has led to competitors reducing prices and offering better service. However, there's no word of change regarding net neutrality. As a KC resident, TWC has not yet reduced my internet costs or increased speeds.

I'll say my only knowledge of this was anecdotal (from others) I can say first hand, that if you call your ISP and say "I'm switching to X service at $Y for Zmbps" you can get your bill reduced.

The only other option is U-verse which is more expensive for the same speed or they don't even offer the same speed. Calling the ISP and threatening them only works if you can find someone with the power to do so(and hope they don't note your account for trying it again, later..), and assumes they hold true to their word on your next bill.

I was primarily refuting your "causes isps to lower their prices" because Google fiber has done NOTHING for TWC's marketing. It's still the same terrible prices.

Post reply on HN