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

Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 205 posts

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#161

Post by qaq »

drawkbox wrote: post #134
qaq wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think the same it is likely though that in large metro areas e.g. NYC, LA, DC, Philadelphia ... etc. there is strong competition and wide availability of interesting options. Given the population numbers the VAST MAJORITY is more like 50/50

As seen in my links, 80% (30% with zero) of the country/population has 0-1 options for 25Mbps and 92% (55% with zero) of the country/population have 0-1 options for 100Mbps. Even areas in the big cities you mentioned most people only have 0-1 choices for 25Mbps-100Mbps. I won't even go into the small amount that has access to gigabit which everyone should be on. If you are ok with that, that is on you, we can do bett…

You do realize that's data from 2014 ? By mid 2016 it's 49% of households have at least 2 broadband providers and 68% have at least one provider offering 100/10 or better it's 2018 now.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#162

Post by codefolder »

codefolder wrote: post #160
codefolder wrote: post #159

I lost respect for Mozilla when they gave up the curved edge on the

Where they gave up their core principles. When shall I say. Edge was legacy. Edge was curve. Edge was not straight. Edge was culture betrayed. When Mozilla left the soft curve edge for the sake of efficiency, they described themselves as compromize apologists. One: betraying the userbase by destroying the app ecosystem, breaking the entire landscape of usable implements. Fuck Mozilla.

Chrome is corporate. The ambiguous edge of lackey capitalizm. Thee weil do no evil, bullshit ee ching. Microsoft, a problem since Windows 95. So, what are we left with? Weir left with a system that does not have an adequate browser for all of the information pools that we have come to gather. All this data!

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#163

Post by livus »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #154
earenndil wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is in google/netflix's interest that net neutrality be abolished.

How so? How would Netflix benefit from NN being abolished?

They've reached a market position where NN doesn't really impact them much. They, now, have the cashflow to pay their way out. They can pay, smaller companies cannot, thus cementing their position in the market. Absence of NN, in an indirect way, helps them competitively by constructing artificial barriers to entry without taking the heat.

Sure ISPs have their own equivalent offerings, but dealing with one or two competitors in an area is easier than dealing with a couple of them.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#164

Post by KozmoNau7 »

livus wrote: post #163
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? How would Netflix benefit from NN being abolished?

They've reached a market position where NN doesn't really impact them much. They, now, have the cashflow to pay their way out. They can pay, smaller companies cannot, thus cementing their position in the market. Absence of NN, in an indirect way, helps them competitively by constructing artificial barriers to entry without taking the heat. Sure ISPs have their own equivalent offerings, but dealing with one or two com…

Not so when their major competitors are literally part of the ISPs they have to negotiate with.

I know Netflix has pretty good penetration and awareness with customers, but people are fickle and will jump ship as soon as something better (or less shit, due to less bandwidth squeezing) is available.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#165

Post by javitury »

leeoniya wrote: post #149
javitury wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different groups of customers can have on average different preferences. ISP content discrimination could be correlated in favor of the preferences of some groups but against the preferences of others. Even if the dont do this on purpose. Let's assume that facebook pays a lot of money to ISPs to be prioritized. Meanwhile github/gitlab can't afford to make any payment and these websites feel slugish. Let's also assume…

> ISPs would de facto be discriminating based on gender, even when it is not explicit. is discrimination based on preference a real thing that the law can protect you against? my understanding is that you cannot discriminate against things a person has little control over (race, gender, etc.) i imagine you'd have to prove that preference discrimination was being used specifically as a proxy for the others to have any…

> some preferences can be more expensive to deliver than others

I don't think that a kb of facebook is significantly more costly to deliver than a kb of github.

ISPs bill by kbs consumed or a flat rate according to bandwidth availability. In the second case, even if some consumer groups use more bandwidth, it is not consumer's fault. ISPs sell you some capacity, but they underprovision and are therefore affected by total consumption. Without underprovisioning, costs should be out of the equation.

However I agree with you that this point is hard to argue in court.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#166

Post by dragonwriter »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #144
dragonwriter wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 2015 rules the FCC pushed forward by saying they were considered "common carriers" under the 1934 Communications act More precisely, “telecommunications carriers” under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which substsntially revised and restructured the 1934 Communications Act; the 1996 Act specifies that telecommunication carriers are, when acting as telecommunication carriers, common carriers. > The political th…

>Their authority over the internet is based on a law adopted in 1996 whose major motivations included updating the 1934 Act to cover modern communications including the internet. The 96 update specifically lays out another class, information carriers, meant for things like broadband, that aren't regulated as common carriers. It did not see internet access essentially replacing cable and phone access, and did not expl…

> The 96 update specifically lays out another class, information carriers

“information services”.

> meant for things like broadband

Both “information services” and “telecommunication services” (the provision of the latter of which , other than in aggregated form, makes one a “telecommunication carrier”; there is no “information carrier”) have defined criteria in the Act. [0] The core of the dispute will be, really, your claim that “information service” is “meant for things like broadband”; the definitions, BTW, specifically recognize overlap between the basic categories and specifically note that to the extent there is overlap, the “telecommunication service” classification prevails.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/153

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#168

Post by croon »

dingo_bat wrote: post #148
orcdork wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want a society where this kind of backwards, reductive and downright hateful notions, passed as "free speech", "politics" or just "speaking my mind, bro" have no place. And i do want (and in some cases expect) organizations to support that kind of society and show the door to people holding these views.

I think it's you who is being "hateful". And I'm scared that I'll be persecuted for my views and denied from participating in something I'm good at and enjoy, probably by somebody who thinks like you.

A community disenfranchising people based on non-chosen traits.

!=

A community ejecting someone for supporting a movement towards communities disenfranchising people based on non-chosen traits.

I'm consistently amazed by people arguing that someone wanting to exclude all left-handed people or glass-wearing people is the same as an organisation booting someone for holding these backwards, bigoted, frankly despicable ideas.

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

> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#169

Post by ocdtrekkie »

nitrogen wrote: post #133
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make any sense, because nobody would buy the $150 a month add-on for an IoT device. This is why net neutrality makes no sense: The arguments for it are based on illogical premises. Verizon could charge $150 a month, but nobody would buy that service, and they make no money. But a $5 a year plan, gets a TON of new sales, hundreds of thousands of IoT devices, hypothetically, and the network limitations kee…

What part of net neutrality proposals would prevent ISPs from offering lower speed plans at lower prices? Also, where has anybody argued that net neutrality would prevent the customer from choosing to block all but a specific host? You've come down against net neutrality in every thread I've seen about it lately. Have you come across any arguments in favor that are persuasive to you?

Net neutrality outlaws any conduct by the ISP to regulate or throttle off destinations by which site it is. Customers aren't doing it, the ISP is. Even Ajit Pai's proposal demands transparency so customers can make their own decisions, but net neutrality would indeed prohibit specific use Internet offerings.

Nobody could offer one because net neutrality would prohibit an ISP from intervening if you popped the SIM into another device to surf the web with it.

Google and Netflix are both against allowing such because streaming video, of which these companies own the largest providers of streaming video, would be the primary thing limited plans would all definitely restrict. Neither company wants ISPs selling Internet plans that can't use their video services.

Even if it'd be good for the customer.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#170

Post by msla »

lazysheepherd wrote: post #19
msla wrote: post #3

I wonder if the fact they bundled adware/spyware in with their browser will affect this.

Why would you insert your misleading message twice in the same topic within 15 minutes? It is hard to understand whether you are a disappointed Mozilla supporter or a paid troll for somebody. This is not exactly an accusation, but that's how it looks. On the other hand, after this move, now I'm seriously planning to switch to Mozilla.

Because it's a discussion we need to have, and I realized that my standalone comment wasn't going to accomplish that.

My later comment did, BTW, even though it's now "hidden" to some extent for some unknown reason. HN mods being pro-Mozilla?

(BTW, an accusation which you claim is not an accusation is a poor accusation indeed.)

Post reply on HN