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

171–180 of 388 posts

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#171

Post by m333t »

caburlingame wrote: post #6

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

It's a made up issue. "Net neutrality" doesn't mean a free internet. It means a free internet regulated by the FCC.

Almost nobody is against a free internet. A lot of people such as myself are against the FCC being in charge of regulating it. Competition and the FTC's anti-trust authority have kept the internet free for decades and will continue to do so in the future.

The people pushing "net neutrality" want to transfer power to the FCC because the FCC will go beyond maintaining fair access to the internet. They'll next move into regulating content as they have done with television and radio. That's the real goal.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#172

Post by jplayer01 »

rory096 wrote: post #22
api wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at what ISPs do in Portugal, which lacks any kind of net neutrality. They are already trying to bundle sites and protocols like cable channels. It's not far fetched at all.

>Portugal... lacks any kind of net neutrality. Last I checked, Portugal is in the European Union. Presumably it has the same net neutrality rules the rest of the EU does.

Yes, but these net neutrality rules have loop-holes for zero-rating. It's not as ironclad as it should be. Portugal just seems to be on the forefront of abusing these.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#173

Post by patrickaljord »

feikname wrote: post #154
patrickaljord wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the costs of compliance are low, if not zero. How could this possibly be zero? If a town's ISP has a bandwidth of 100Gb/s and has a demand of 200Gb/s by their customers, they can: - prioritize certain bits such as live streaming that can't be slown down without degrading user experience, unlike text (current solution) - slow down everything as forced by FCC's Net Neutrality (which would make live streaming unwat…

> How could this possibly be zero? If a town's ISP has a bandwidth of 100Gb/s and has a demand of 200Gb/s by their customers, they can: IMO, if you're selling more than you can provide, you're already doing it wrong... It's not acceptable to prioritize some content over another when having the appropriate infrastructure would solve the problem. > invest in bigger infrastructure and pass the cost down to consumers (wh…

> People will be paying for the product anyway, I don't see anything wrong with charging the cost of production/maintenance + profits

Have you ever thought that many people are fine with the deal they're currently getting and don't have the money to pay for more? Maybe that's great for rich people, but for lower income folks, the way ISPs optimize bandwidth right now is fine, they've probably done tons of testing to make it the less noticeable possible while providing the best prices for their customers (market at work). Forcing high bandwidth for all people even those that don't care will leave people out of internet connection at all as they won't be able to pay at all. So people won't be able to pay anymore but at least your principles will be respected, sounds like the classical case of unintended consequences of leftists policies that always end up hurting the poorest while giving good conscience and a good deal to the rich. Not a big fan of that kind of things personally.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#174

Post by ryandrake »

The site is technically pretty neat, but honestly does anyone think a bunch of low-effort automated calls to a Congressperson's voicemail is really going to change anything? The commoners' opinions about Net Neutrality (or any issue, really) is pretty low on the list of things our so-called representatives are worried about.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#175

Post by nvr219 »

ryandrake wrote: post #174

The site is technically pretty neat, but honestly does anyone think a bunch of low-effort automated calls to a Congressperson's voicemail is really going to change anything? The commoners' opinions about Net Neutrality (or any issue, really) is pretty low on the list of things our so-called representatives are worried about.

My thoughts exactly.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#176

Post by fladrif »

19guid wrote: post #117
neuterlize2 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In principle, I don't think there's anything wrong with an ISP prioritizing certain kinds of traffic over others, so long as it does not have an anti-competitive effect. Can't have that if there is no competitive ISP you can change to, if you don't like this NN violating ISP. > For example, I don't see how Netflix paying Comcast to zero-rate Netflix traffic is fundamentally different from Amazon contracting with ma…

> Can't have that if there is no competitive ISP you can change to, if you don't like this NN violating ISP. Sure, but that indicates a need for competition, not net neutrality. As I said in another comment, even if it prevents some of the worst abuses by incumbents, net neutrality regulation isn't going to create more competition. > This analogy breaks down immediately, because Comcast is already getting Netflix tra…

I agree, we need competition, but that's not something we will get in a reasonable time scale. We're insisting on NetNeutrality for the sole purpose of protecting consumers. By just saying 'the free market will solve all our problems' won't help us get there or solve any real issues that will plague people from now til some future where that may or may not be realized.

Per your second point regarding the imminency of a free market, is that not also a regulation being imposed upon ISP's? You're proposing regulation on the physical infrastructure whilst NN argues for regulation (or non-regulation as it were) of data. What is the difference in your opinion?

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#177

Post by container »

r3bl wrote: post #155
erk__ wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not a question of net neutrality, every contry have blocked websites, for some reason or another.

Citation needed, because I sure as heck know that my country didn't.

May I ask what country that is?

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#178

Post by patrickaljord »

neuterlize wrote: post #159
patrickaljord wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the costs of compliance are low, if not zero. How could this possibly be zero? If a town's ISP has a bandwidth of 100Gb/s and has a demand of 200Gb/s by their customers, they can: - prioritize certain bits such as live streaming that can't be slown down without degrading user experience, unlike text (current solution) - slow down everything as forced by FCC's Net Neutrality (which would make live streaming unwat…

Upgrading your infrastructure to meet the demand your customers place on it isn't a cost of regulatory compliance. It's the cost of doing business. Where in the network neutrality order did the FCC impose censorship on the Internet?

>Upgrading your infrastructure to meet the demand your customers place on it isn't a cost of regulatory compliance. It's the cost of doing business.

No, that's not how business work. If customers are not happy with a service they can shop elsewhere. The business is not forced by government to improve its infrastructure, just by customers pressure. The fact that some places only have one ISP is because government over-regulate right to pass and install fiber.

> Where in the network neutrality order did the FCC impose censorship on the Internet?

Once you turn the internet into a public utility, it gives the power to the FCC to censor it anyway it wants, just like TV or radio. Of course it won't be done overnight. Just wait for a big nazi/antifa/pedophile/terrorist internet scandal that would lead to a tragic death, than people will rush in a bill that says "sorry folks but we can't allow people to publish anything they want, think of the children" just like they did with public broadcasting on tv and radio. Making the internet a public utility is a requirement to pass these censorship laws, it's a first step. Censorship always happens in small steps. Think of the patriot act, if you give the government the power to take your rights away, they eventually will. Although to be fair they already have that power, but this will basically give them even more justification and power.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#179

Post by reustle »

ivarious wrote: post #156

https://i.imgur.com/DhL4vKq.jpg Indonesia doesn't have net neutrality laws. That's the screenshot of Indosat (Internet Provider)'s app where you can buy data plan from. But as you can see, they sell data plans ala carte, per application in this case. If your favorite app is not there, you're shit out of luck and have to use the more expensive universal data plan. Not only that, last year, the biggest home internet pr…

Just for the curious, this isn't how every ISP in Indonesia is. Friends and I have had your standard sim cards which allows you to access any site freely.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#180

Post by snowmaker »

ryandrake wrote: post #174

The site is technically pretty neat, but honestly does anyone think a bunch of low-effort automated calls to a Congressperson's voicemail is really going to change anything? The commoners' opinions about Net Neutrality (or any issue, really) is pretty low on the list of things our so-called representatives are worried about.

Calls from real people to Congress do have a real impact. Calls from a site just like this are what killed the SOPA/PIPA legislation.
Post reply on HN