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

Keep the Internet Open

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 415 posts

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#151

Post by dragonwriter »

nocman wrote: post #136
cmurf wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or default service that blocks VPN, tracks everything you're doing and uses it for their benefit; and if you don't like that you can pay extra to opt out. It's really clear. Democrats: This is the customer's information. Republicans: This is the ISP's equipment, and therefore anything on it is fair game for the equipment owner to use however they want, deny service to whoever they want, for any reason they want. So d…

That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with. Do you have some hard data that says things break down so clearly along party lines? I'd particularly like to see data about non-politicians, if it is available, since the way Congress votes on such things is not necessarily driven by the way their constituents view the issue (if they are even aware of it).

> That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with. Do you have some hard data that says things break down so clearly along party lines?

They do on the FCC, for the whole time since net neutrality and internet privacy have become an issue. Congress is a little fuzzier but mostly along the same lines.

In the electorate it might be blurrier, but clearly the distribution of views of the relevant politicians shows that the people who cross lines on the above description and who prioritize the issue when it comes to voting aren't that numerous.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#152

Post by Arizhel »

rsync wrote: post #132
bo1024 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by extremism? I view net neutrality as the requirement to treat all bits equally regardless of source, which is kind of a binary one. I think as long as we are talking about the hardware infrastructure, (2) is a fundamental problem that cannot be fixed by adding competition, because it shares some common features with utilities like water, electricity, etc (making me believe internet access ought to…

"What do you mean by extremism? I view net neutrality as the requirement to treat all bits equally regardless of source, which is kind of a binary one." It should be possible for me to build some kind of public network, somewhere, for some purpose ... and dictate bits/traffic any way I see fit. Now maybe I can't do that with CATV because common carrier. And maybe I can't do that with public spectrum because public re…

There shouldn't, unless you're wiling to be responsible for all the bits that pass through your network. So if one of your subscribers transfers some CP on your network, you need to automatically to go prison for life for that. Is that OK with you? Sounds good to me.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#153

Post by DannyBee »

confounded wrote: post #49

Because of the massive amount of consolidation over the last few years, the death of Net Neutrality would be the best competitive moat imaginable for Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. While all their CEOs will make faint noises in favor of Net Neutrality, SV outspends Wall Street 2:1 on lobbying[1], the goal of which is to cement monopoly status, not to make the world a better place. Most of it goes to Republicans. Thin…

"Things have changed fast; Google hardly even had lobbyists back during the SOPA blackout. "

Errr, the DC office had 100+ people at that point, so ....

(IE i'm not sure why you think that, and given it's completely wrong, i'm going to go with 'you just have no idea what you are talking about')

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#154

Post by rrdharan »

plainOldText wrote: post #141

I haven't yet made up my mind on net neutrality. But Sam says: "I believe access should be a basic right" . My question is: How can something be a human right if you need to pay for it? Because as of today you still need to pay an ISP for internet access.

A lot of folks would consider personal security a basic right, but someone still has to pay for the police.

Some folks believe that healthcare should be a basic right, and people definitely have to pay for that.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#155

Post by fragmede »

sama wrote: post #19
brothercolor wrote: post #14

The internet is what makes Silicon Valley go round. Everyone, including Sam Altman, needs to be an activist. Asking for someone else to take point on something so fundamental is like asking Natives to take point on water prot-- wait.

I am happy to help, and honestly if I had more time right now I'd take this on directly--right now is an unusually busy time for me. I agree with you it's critical to Silicon Valley.

Sorry to say, but that's the same for ~everybody. There's always a project to launch, one more feature to code up, one more customer to close, one more support email to respond to.

Thankfully, someone else saw the need for a group of people dedicated to fighting for everybody's rights online, back in 1990. I'm talking, of course, about the EFF.

So you can donate.

The head of the FCC doesn't believe in net neutrality, so it's going to be a long fight so they could use your support.

http://eff.org/donate

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#156

Post by rdl »

acdha wrote: post #106
rdl wrote: post #58

While I like the Internet being open, I don't like "net neutrality" extremism. 1) While I dislike monopoly carrier antics, I'm even more unhappy about the idea of government bureaucrats dictating network engineering standards to carriers and ISPs. If you build a network with caches/content servers close to users, and expensive backhaul back to your network core, you can offer essentially unlimited traffic to users hi…

Your first point isn't traditionally included in net neutrality – that belief, and everything about bureaucrats dictating standards was created out of whole cloth by the ISP lobbying effort. The core idea is only fairness: e.g. Comcast can't throttle or charge for connectivity based on your perceived ability to pay and their in-house service shouldn't get separate pricing. Similarly, zero-rating isn't usually conside…

The first point is exactly what Comcast can do with their own video service that they can't do with a random video service. (They can do it with someone like Netflix with open content servers.)

If NN were structured such that a company like Netflix had to provide content servers for internal-to-network deployment or netflix customers would higher rate or lower performance for Netflix traffic, but Comcast had to charge the same rate and same standards for Netflix, Comcast's own video product, or any other third party to do this, I'd support it.

I don't particularly value the ability of a carrier to engage in bundling/commercial exploitation of the monopoly, but I do want providers free to engage in technical innovation to provide multiple 4K streams and gigabit access to customers at $50/mo, etc.

This is an even bigger deal when you start looking at other network technologies (wireless/cellular, some of the WISPs, etc.) than fiber to the home or HFC.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#157

Post by beefman »

I was convinced in favor of net neutrality by a 2007 study at the University of Florida.[1] When ISPs are allowed to charge content providers individually, there is less incentive to improve overall bandwidth. There's also an incentive to cripple the free tier, especially if it can be done subtly or by neglect over time. So net neutrality seems like good policy.

[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20130602210518/http://news.ufl.ed...

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#158

Post by E6300 »

cmurf wrote: post #123
nemothekid wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Guess what happens when G runs a banner under each search or Youtube video mentioning that performance is bad because Comcast is blocking things, here's Brian Roberts's phone number? Nothing because consumers typically have a choice of 1 or maybe 2 ISPs? You said it yourself, Comcast is already the most disliked company in the US - they'd have nothing to lose by blocking YouTube - or worse, making it so slow that Go…

Or default service that blocks VPN, tracks everything you're doing and uses it for their benefit; and if you don't like that you can pay extra to opt out. It's really clear. Democrats: This is the customer's information. Republicans: This is the ISP's equipment, and therefore anything on it is fair game for the equipment owner to use however they want, deny service to whoever they want, for any reason they want. So d…

It can be argued that the ISP's equipment is useless unless it runs data lines through state-owned land, therefore no, it doesn't get to do absolutely anything it wants with it.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#159

Post by pdonis »

andy_ppp wrote: post #88
pdonis wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are ISPs monopolies in the US In many parts of it, yes, they are, because of deals that ISPs have struck with local governments. > wouldn't stopping these monopolies be the surest way Yes, and every time it's been tried, the ISPs go to court and, since they have much deeper pockets, end up getting the attempts shot down.

Okay so maybe YC should be funding a few clever ISP startups in the US? There really is decent competition for Internet in the UK, it's surprisingly successful at stopping this type of stupid stuff from happening.

> maybe YC should be funding a few clever ISP startups in the US?

I think that would be a great idea.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#160

Post by rdl »

tetrep wrote: post #120
acdha wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first point isn't traditionally included in net neutrality – that belief, and everything about bureaucrats dictating standards was created out of whole cloth by the ISP lobbying effort. The core idea is only fairness: e.g. Comcast can't throttle or charge for connectivity based on your perceived ability to pay and their in-house service shouldn't get separate pricing. Similarly, zero-rating isn't usually conside…

> Similarly, zero-rating isn't usually considered a network neutrality problem as long as the option is open to everyone at the same pricing. That's still extremely anti-competitive. Incumbents are in an much better position to pay large sums of money to have relatively minor services stream for free. People will flock to those services and a small competitor will have no viable option of paying for the fees and rema…

I think the natural consequence of zero rating or other benefits for "big" providers is an expansion of CDNs and other intermediaries to let a collection of small sites benefit from the infrastructure investment of others, in addition to consolidation (such as content providers running YouTube channels vs. their own video infrastructure).
Post reply on HN