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

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

hackernoon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 343 posts

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

#111

Post by eecc »

Danihan wrote: post #99
Kequc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may not be up on the latest news. My understanding from the best sources I can find detail a disagreement within the government about how net neutrality is implemented, not that it exists. Internet providers want to repeal net neutrality. Democrats are happy with the current implementation. Republicans want to enshrine net neutrality in law through congress, stripping what they believe is overreach on the part of t…

You could just be against government price controls in general..

How does “government price control” relate to simply forbidding double sale?

All NN does is to disallow ISP from tiering the internet and double dipping on both sides of the network.

Imagine if you had to pay a different subscription to call only family, another also for friends, anyone on the Bell directory, anyone on other directories, businesses. You’d imagine telephones would have remained a novelty to this day

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

#112

Post by golf1052 »

Danihan wrote: post #104
fungi wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

r/The_Donald/ has some particularly impressive mental gymnastics going on to support repeal. Breitbart comments are fascinating.

Being against government price controls == mental gymnastics?

Please take a refresher on what net neutrality is.

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

The government is not controlling the price, they are mandating that ISPs treat all network traffic the same.

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

#113

Post by likelynew »

eecc wrote: post #108
keypress wrote: post #100

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.

Well, if you as an ISP advertise and sell subscriptions for 200mbps (with the “up to” hidden in 7pt, 10 pages down into the contract) and customers buy the service it is none of your business how those 200mbps are being used, only to shuffle them along at the speed that has been paid for. If the sold speed is only achievable when nobody else in the neighborhood is using the service then it’s a lie, and it’s no one el…

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.

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

#114

Post by olegkikin »

keypress wrote: post #100
bufferoverflow wrote: post #86

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.

Doesn't Netflix pay for its bandwidth?

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

#115

Post by Danihan »

golf1052 wrote: post #112
Danihan wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being against government price controls == mental gymnastics?

Please take a refresher on what net neutrality is. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality The government is not controlling the price, they are mandating t…

But all network traffic is not the same. So why should it be treated as if it is?

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

#116

Post by downandout »

searealist wrote: post #30
everdev wrote: post #2

Just like the election, I wonder if the people behind this care if they get caught as long as they get what they want first. There doesn't seem to be much precedent for overturning laws or elections that were subject to misinformation campaigns.

> Just like the election Please don't instigate a flame war.

If you’re referring to my comment (which is now flagged, for no reason other than it being less than sympathetic to HC’s argument that the Russians ruined the election for her - you have to love HN), I wasn’t flaming anyone. I simply pointed out that IMO this FCC incident is much more serious than what happened in the election. Leaked but real emails about unethical/illegal conduct did nothing more than make the voters better informed about actual facts, while this incident intentionally presented false data to the voters at the FCC, who may rely on it in their decision making. The latter is infinitely worse IMO. One involves better informing the voters, the other involves lying to them.

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

#117

Post by Danihan »

eecc wrote: post #111
Danihan wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could just be against government price controls in general..

How does “government price control” relate to simply forbidding double sale? All NN does is to disallow ISP from tiering the internet and double dipping on both sides of the network. Imagine if you had to pay a different subscription to call only family, another also for friends, anyone on the Bell directory, anyone on other directories, businesses. You’d imagine telephones would have remained a novelty to this day

Why should ISPs be disallowed from charging what they like for the product they sell? That's the entire point of a free market.

I understand the issues inherent in leasing the lines, but fundamentally companies should be able to price their offerings as they wish.

There simply needs to be fewer barriers to entry for new ISPs to come into the market.

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

#118

Post by Fnoord »

keypress wrote: post #100
bufferoverflow wrote: post #86

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.

> This quotes netflix as having 37% of traffic in N.A.

Its irrelevant who creates this traffic. Wether it is The Pirate Bay or Netflix or Spotify or Google or DDoSers. The traffic is there. Only in the latter case do you want measures from the ISP(s).

ISPs could install CDNs.

Apparently the ISPs can handle the bandwidth, else they'd take measures. If ISPs can't handle the bandwidth they need to charge their customers more, decrease the overal max bandwidth the customers have, or decrease the monthly bandwidth caps. It is that simple.

> 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.

You make it seem autobahn usage is unfair (that's a debate in Germany as the German government argues or argued tourists use the autobahn without paying so they're considering requiring a vignette).

What you do to deal with this is you increase the tax owners of cars pay, introduce a "vignette" as they have in Austria and Switzerland, or introduce toll roads as e.g. France notoriously has. Trucks pay more, but there's no other differentiation AFAIK. And each vehicle pays.

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

#119

Post by vermilingua »

Danihan wrote: post #115
golf1052 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please take a refresher on what net neutrality is. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality The government is not controlling the price, they are mandating t…

But all network traffic is not the same. So why should it be treated as if it is?

All network traffic is the same. As far as an ISP should be concerned, it's all just bits flowing through a wire. When they start characterizing those bits, net neutrality is violated.

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

#120

Post by yorwba »

downandout wrote: post #109
keypress wrote: post #100

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.

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.

Those 10% of the internet's bandwidth are already paid for by the end user, why does there need be an extra charge?
Post reply on HN