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

Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 136 posts

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#101

Post by mreome »

payne92 wrote: post #82

We may need to first live with some ISP shenanigans before everybody fully understands what network neutrality is about. A few years ago, I noticed that frontier was hijacking Google searches. A search bar search for "Amazon" went straight to amazon.com, complete with an affiliate id! I wrote a letter to the Frontier CEO, sent it via FedEx, and she called me directly within hours of receiving it. The gist of my lette…

My concern is that they won't make it so obvious though. If they simply install fast lanes and the big-players start paying, will the average internet user notice that the few small sites they visit load slower? Would it really be that much more obvious then traffic shaping?

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#102

Post by notyourday »

crispyambulance wrote: post #5

Net neutrality is dying because no one has been able to make a compelling case for it that can be understood by constituents, let alone politicians. There is one thing that just enough politicians do understand, however, and that's money. In their pockets. From ghouls who will profit handsomely when online access in the USA becomes effectively equivalent to shitty cable-tv service.

Net Neutrality fight was lost because it was a fight between billion dollar companies cynically peddled as a fight between "little guys" and "big evil companies". And that is exactly what it is.

On one side there are Google/Facebook/Youtube and likes and on another side are Comcast/Verizon/ATT/Sprint and like. Let me see do I care if Comcast screws Google and makes it pay more? Nope. How about Netflix? Nope. Wait, do I care if NetFlix makes life hell for Verizon? You guessed it, I do not. In fact, I would like them all to beat each other up into total destruction so we can go back to the world with lots of content providers and lots of ISPs.

The average consumer is the same way. He or she hears that Google has billions of dollars in cash. He or she hears how VZ is screwing taxpayers with their broadband roll outs.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#103

Post by mreome »

syshum wrote: post #56
avryhof wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see that. Website packages, just like channel packages on cable. - You can get all the shopping sites, and your ISP's streaming service in the base package. - Third-party Music Sites with Music Extra. - Third-party Video Sites with Video Extra. Then there is the Several speed levels of the Unlimited plan starting at just $999/month. Personal blogs, websites and Open Source project sites will be restricted to th…

No what you are going to see is Zero Rating with extreme Caps "Want 4K Content, Use HULU and it will not count toward your 1TB limit" "Want unlimited music, Our new Xfinity Music Service is now allows you to enjoy all the music you want with out worry about going over your data cap" Then ofcourse will be fast lanes "Tired of your 4K movie buffering, Try the new Xfintiy On Demand, Guaranteed not to buffer"

Exactly, and it's easy to make this look like a positive feature to the uninformed consumer. As for "Going to see..." this is already how many mobile data-plans already operate - not charging extra for the exemption, but using it as a way to prioritize a particular service(s).

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#104

Post by notyourday »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #51
crispyambulance wrote: post #5

Net neutrality is dying because no one has been able to make a compelling case for it that can be understood by constituents, let alone politicians. There is one thing that just enough politicians do understand, however, and that's money. In their pockets. From ghouls who will profit handsomely when online access in the USA becomes effectively equivalent to shitty cable-tv service.

Here's a compelling case: -- All big sites ban users from Comcast, Verizon, ATT every monday, explaining to them what Net Neutrality is, and that if they don't want to pay for special 'access' to sites like google/facebook etc the same way they have to pay for HBO, then they better contact their congressmen or their internet service provider and complain.. Something like: "I'm sorry your provider Comcast is against N…

Netflix did it to VZ when VZ refused to do more PNIs with NetFlix. NetFlix folded within a couple of weeks after VZ offered them a slightly better deal.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#105

Post by radarsat1 »

unclesaamm wrote: post #60

This article buys way too much into the concept of "democratic efficiency", that "being heard" leads directly to government action, and therefore lack of action (or the wrong kind of action) is _caused by_ a lack of "being heard". This is so, so, so wrong, and is just further setting the stage for net neutrality to be repealed and for the blame to be cast at activists' feet. Net neutrality is one of the most popular…

> a government that is utterly unresponsive to its people.

Isn't that what is meant by "not being heard"?

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#106

Post by richardknop »

mreome wrote: post #97
richardknop wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to sign up to hefty subscription packages with loads of bundled shite just to watch 7 hours of Game of Thrones. You don't have to. Most people watch GoT for free either from torrents or from free streaming websites.

Which will not be available on your Non-Neutral Comcast/Verizon/Etc Internet Package.

Yes but this is only in US I guess. Rest of the world is not under Comcast/Verizon monopoly.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#107

Post by uncletammy »

metalliqaz wrote: post #74
uncletammy wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also expect new infrastructure to be the most likely solution. I wouldn't expect it to be 4G/5G mobile service though. I always thought that the next infrastructure would be a series of wireless mesh networks. They are extremely censorship resistant and can operate on unlicensed frequencies which makes them resistant to centralized control. I've heard about projects like https://nycmesh.net and http://guifi.net tha…

Operating on unlicensed bands means it would die as soon as it became popular.

That's a good point but 900MHz did okay, didn't it?

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#108

Post by jolux »

metalliqaz wrote: post #14
jolux wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump doesn't care about listening to anyone, least of all those who put him in office. Republicans in general don't either, or they wouldn't be cutting everyone's healthcare.

They listen to their base. They can't afford to lose the base. It's the outreach to moderates that only happens during campaigns. For what it's worth, they aren't actually cutting health care. There's a reason they can't get a repeal through even though they control both houses of congress and have a rubber stamp waiting in the white house.

Their base lost the popular vote, the MO of the modern GOP is rule by minority through any means necessary. Plus all they need to do to get their base to vote is induce moral panic about abortions or transgender people, which they're already pretty good at.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#110

Post by jancsika »

splintercell wrote: post #30
burkaman wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the economic incentives to keep Internet free?

There are economic incentives to deliver what people want. Fox news is hugely profitable because it delivers to people what no other media organization delivers, and that is a right wing perspective on events. Throughout the Obama years, Fox News made insane amount of money precisely for this reason.

You are arguing against common carrier status for ISPs on the basis that such regulation currently impedes economic incentives.

The example you've given is a highly successful cable channel from a different yet still heavily regulated industry. What does this have to do with common carrier status for ISPs?

Post reply on HN