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

Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

battleforthenet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 388 posts

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#121

Post by Goronmon »

adventured wrote: post #33
tony101 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the ISPs control your Internet access. They don't compete with each other. Without net neutrality, they can prioritize, slow down, or block any site or content they want to. Many people cannot simply switch away. They have only one ISP to choose from. You can switch away from Facebook whenever you wish.

Next logical question: net neutrality has existed for a very short amount of time. The Internet & Web did extremely well before net neutrality, with few instances of abusive carrier restriction over the prior decades. What is the very strong supporting evidence to demonstrate your scenario is the likely outcome? If you want to regulate something so important on the premise you're suggesting, you need to present equal…

What is the very strong supporting evidence to demonstrate your scenario is the likely outcome?

https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-formally-rules-comcasts-thrott...

That's effectively what lead to the situation we are in now. FCC said it's illegal, appeal ruled FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate at the time, FCC makes attempts at making "net neutrality" a thing they can control, and now we are on the verge of having them roll it back.

Basically, ISPs starting pushing the boundaries and a war directly against the concept of net neutrality and that fight is the one we are currently talking about right now, this is just the latest battle.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#122

Post by darklajid »

caburlingame wrote: post #6

Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.

Actually I've just stumbled across a very(!) active HN poster that seems to be against it on a popular micro blogging platform..

The common counter argument seems to be that "Regulation is bad for the open market" and that "Better options would come up if an ISP starts doing weird shit, if the market demands it".

It's interesting to me that the very same people seem to be pro Freedom of Press/Freedom of Speech (as a German, the US Freedom of Speech is something I'm not used to, something that doesn't align with my culture/upbringing), but feel different about this subject because it involves a "market"?

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#124

Post by zaarn »

caburlingame wrote: post #6

Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.

Yes. Some people I know argue that they'd rather wait-and-see rather than just flatout deny it, quote, "Because I've been screwed other by Internet Companies and Cable Companies have been rather nice so far. I think I'd rather pay less for my Internet to only use Facebook tbqf"

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#125

Post by joantune »

thisisit wrote: post #67

Playing the devil's advocate here - Don't all big media companies rely on some form of CDN providers who themselves have some form of deals and agreements with ISPs or Internet exchange. Example - Netflix in India: https://www.medianama.com/2017/05/223-netflix-begins-directl... In which case how does this law change anything? And what effect this might have on CDN providers?

No, no, no.

CDN is different than throttling your Internet.

A CDN is like having a local power generator in your neighborhood, throttling your Internet is like charging your house more for electricity, because the electrical company prefers your neighbor.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#127

Post by IshKebab »

phaus wrote: post #102
neuterlize wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we had NN before 2015. It was the default state and how the Internet was originally built. We used to have competition for Internet services (dialup and DSL), now we don't (most people access the Internet through cable which is a monopoly). The reason why we are losing NN now is because it's become feasible from a technical and business perspective to violate NN. Pai's arguments are pure unadulterated bullshit.…

>We used to have competition for Internet services (dialup and DSL), now we don't (most people access the Internet through cable which is a monopoly). Calling Dial-Up and DSL "competition" is downplaying how shitty things were even in 2015. They are technically competition, but effectively and practically they aren't because the modern web doesn't even work with dial-up and in the many places stuck with the low-end o…

I think he meant competition between different dialup providers, and different DSL providers.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#128

Post by felipelemos »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #72
gt_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if we get rid of net neutrality, we get less ads? That’ll be the day. The “infrastructure industry” huh? The internet, of course, should be treated as a utility.

When people talk about "the internet" or "internet services" they don't just mean a website. There's a whole load of work that has to be done to get the data packets from A to B and create our awesome industry. Ending net neutrality would allow the value created by "the internet" to go to all parts of the stack, instead of just the very end of it. And the base parts of the stack needs the money waaayyy more than the…

What all parts of the stack are you talking about? Money will go to ISPs and their partners. I don't think how Comcast having more money is a good scenario.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#129

Post by Cthulhu_ »

caburlingame wrote: post #6

Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.

The arguments against net neutrality often focus on crappy connections; on 3G networks and early DSL it was common to have rate limits, which made people be very careful with how much internet they used, and/or additional fees above a certain bandwidth usage - similar to utilities like electricity and water (although IDK why there was never really much pay-per-megabyte internet, usually it's a flat fee).

The arguments against net neutrality are related to that; instead of limiting how much people use to keep the pipes open and fast enough so to speak, it's giving certain services preferential treatment, so that in the case of limited bandwidth those aren't disrupted.

Of course, it's a silly thing; most landlines, especially in the cities, will have fiber connections at least up until a local distributor box, and in some cases to the door. This has many gigabits of capacity, which should be enough for everyone.

The thing is that apparently, investments in bandwidth aren't being done enough. Google gave it a good try with their fiber service, but had to give up - probably underestimating how expensive it is, or they were blocked by the existing ISPs that didn't tolerate competition.

TL;DR, I think the problem isn't available bandwidth or whatever, it's competition, or the lack thereof, and investments, or the lack thereof.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#130

Post by piokoch »

darklajid wrote: post #122
caburlingame wrote: post #6

Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.

Actually I've just stumbled across a very(!) active HN poster that seems to be against it on a popular micro blogging platform.. The common counter argument seems to be that "Regulation is bad for the open market" and that "Better options would come up if an ISP starts doing weird shit, if the market demands it". It's interesting to me that the very same people seem to be pro Freedom of Press/Freedom of Speech (as a…

"Regulation is bad for the open market" - that's the root of the problem here. If it weren't for various "licences", "concessions", "permits" to become mobile operator or be allowed to install your cables then we will not need a discussion about net neutrality.

Definitely the bar to become ISP is too high, lower it and the problem will be gone. I don't belive that people don't want to become ISP just like that - something is wrong here.

On the other hand I have to say that sane regulations make sense, for instance mobile operators in Poland who own hardware infrastructure are obliged by law to sell bandwith to virtual operators when requested. That indeed lowered prices and provided better serivces including mobile internet. However, to have a full picture, I need to say that at the down of mobile telephony in Poland, initial investment and infrastructure was build by companies owned or controlled by the state, so, to some extent, infrastructure was payed from public money and later sold to 100% private entities.

Post reply on HN