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

Defending the Open Internet

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#21

Post by vfclists »

majormajor wrote: post #11
vfclists wrote: post #5

The usual and expected hatchet job from a main stream media stalwart. Neglecting the fact the fact digging up the ground to place cable, which is what the customer is actually paying for is entirely different from wiring up interconnects at core exchanges, which costs virtually nothing in comparison. The customer pays the last mile provider to go fetch with the understanding that what they pay covers everything the p…

Does net neutrality fix this issue? If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices? That would look worse from a Comcast PR perspective, but with no competition—which lets them get away with letting the quality of service degrade—does that really matter? This (especially in terms of Netfli…

There is a difference between needing extra money and wanting extra money? Does Comcast want it because they need it to deliver higher speeds to the customers, or are they claiming to need because neither customer nor content provider has alternatives?

If customer's Netflix speeds are degraded it should be because contention at the customer end is slowing down Netflix speeds, not throttling at the ISP's end.

Is there anything high volume enough at customer's ends to interfere with Netflix or other video download speeds?

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#22

Post by vfclists »

wavefunction wrote: post #8
vfclists wrote: post #5

The usual and expected hatchet job from a main stream media stalwart. Neglecting the fact the fact digging up the ground to place cable, which is what the customer is actually paying for is entirely different from wiring up interconnects at core exchanges, which costs virtually nothing in comparison. The customer pays the last mile provider to go fetch with the understanding that what they pay covers everything the p…

Maybe they have visions of a NYTimes "news channel" added to your internet service that you pay for and receive whether you want it or not. Greed or ignorance are generally my first guesses when trying to analyze what appears to be propaganda.

It is mostly greed.

If it is ignorance it is usually an editorial decision. I mean, you can't have idealistic and conscientious writers influencing public opinion against Big Co if you need their ad spending, can you?

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#23

Post by cLeEOGPw »

Honest question: has bandwidth providing costs actually grown very much, or are ISPs just profit hungry and try to rip off everything they can? Because if it's the first one, something should actually be changed for them to compensate.

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#24

Post by bandushrew »

majormajor wrote: post #16
pessimizer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices? Of course they can, and will. That wouldn't divide the internet into fast lanes and slow lanes, though, and would be transparent.

The follow-up becomes: is it better if more of the cost for bandwidth-intensive services is passed on to every consumer, or just to consumers of those services? I don't know where I fall on that one.

It is Comcast's customer who requested data, and it is Comcast who is responsible for ensuring that request is fulfilled.

Therefore it is Comcast's customer who should pay for the service that Comcast provides.

Getting Netflix - for example, to pay Comcast to ensure that Comcast is willing to fulfill the requests for data by Comcast customers is just.....odd.

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#25

Post by rayiner »

pessimizer wrote: post #14
rayiner wrote: post #10

It annoys me that people invoke Chinese dissidents, MIT OpenCourseware, and Wikipedia in the context of an issue that, to date, only involves for-profit companies. I don't get how people can work up a moralistic fervor over a dispute between two giant highly profitable industries. Its not that I don't believe that the internet is a tool to deliver education to the underserved, or give voice to the politically margina…

>an issue that, to date, only involves for-profit companies. Because that isn't what this is. The arguments between these massive companies are deciding the future of peer-to-peer communications on the internet. If the ones who own the wires win, the internet will be officially divided into two classes: servers and clients. Netflix will still be as fast as it ever was (if not faster) if it pays, and if it doesn't, th…

Just because software views IP nodes symmetrically doesn't mean that there aren't central and leaf nodes in the physical structure of the network. That asymmetry is endemic to where consumer nodes sit on the physical network.

I quite agree that letting the people who own the wires do what they want will have an effect on the margins of companies who depend on those wires to reach customers. But doesn't that reinforce my point: there is something disingenuous about certain companies taking up the mantle of free speech and internet Utopianism to lobby for policy that is primarily targeted at fattening their own profit margins?

I don't see any reason to pick sides, certainly. I am equally skeptical of lobbying by ISP's that invoke the public interest or consumer protection to justify regulation excluding competitors from their markets.

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#26

Post by bandushrew »

rayiner wrote: post #10

It annoys me that people invoke Chinese dissidents, MIT OpenCourseware, and Wikipedia in the context of an issue that, to date, only involves for-profit companies. I don't get how people can work up a moralistic fervor over a dispute between two giant highly profitable industries. Its not that I don't believe that the internet is a tool to deliver education to the underserved, or give voice to the politically margina…

Because, as much as possible, we dont want ISPs to discriminate against any website, whether it is discrimination based on politics, or commercial interests.

I have no care about whether Apple can get its websites shown - Apple can take care of itself.

I do care whether I or other entrepreneurs can continue to publish our ideas without suddenly needing to bribe ISPs to not ruin the experience of customers using the site by throttling bandwidth as soon as it gets popular.

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#27

Post by rayiner »

bandushrew wrote: post #26
rayiner wrote: post #10

It annoys me that people invoke Chinese dissidents, MIT OpenCourseware, and Wikipedia in the context of an issue that, to date, only involves for-profit companies. I don't get how people can work up a moralistic fervor over a dispute between two giant highly profitable industries. Its not that I don't believe that the internet is a tool to deliver education to the underserved, or give voice to the politically margina…

Because, as much as possible, we dont want ISPs to discriminate against any website, whether it is discrimination based on politics, or commercial interests. I have no care about whether Apple can get its websites shown - Apple can take care of itself. I do care whether I or other entrepreneurs can continue to publish our ideas without suddenly needing to bribe ISPs to not ruin the experience of customers using the s…

But why? I understand the rationale for websites that are political or educational non-profits. They need the public to protect them. But why should the public protect, in the name of Internet Utopianism, for-profit enterprises? Why shouldn't for-profit enterprises fend for themselves?

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#28

Post by bandushrew »

_red wrote: post #3
innoying wrote: post #2

Somewhat related, but I made a small site to help the average internet "user" understand what net neutrality is and why it's important: http://net-neutrality.io/ I'm not quite sure where to advertise it, does HN have any suggestions?

Forget the average user, can you explain in detail how you envision this to work and be administrated at a network level? So I'm a packet, leaving my computer...what happens now and what laws govern me? So for the NN supporters have been very high on rhetoric and appalling low on details, which is always a prescription for legislative disaster.

I love the implication that it is somehow incumbent on NN supporters to educate you about how the internet works.....and the additional implication that there is a single set of laws that govern it.

If you actually understand neither the technical details, or the legal aspects, maybe you should take responsibility for educating yourself?

or, at the very least, avoid making deprecating comments about those who know more than yourself?

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#29

Post by rayiner »

pessimizer wrote: post #18

We need a chairman of the FCC that is old enough that they'll retire afterwards. Nobody wants to be the one who pulls the trigger on common carrier because they all plan to work at telecom, cable companies, and radio networks after they step down. Of course, there's still speaking fees.

Tom Wheeler is 66. Before becoming FCC chairman, he was managing director at a VC fund that funded early stage companies. He has also founded several companies. He was also on the board of directors of EarthLink, which is a competitive ISP with interests adverse to the entrenched cable companies. Aside from a stint at NCTA in the 80's, long before they were in the IsP business, his business background is far more skewed in favor of Internet companies.

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#30

Post by selmnoo »

rayiner wrote: post #27
bandushrew wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, as much as possible, we dont want ISPs to discriminate against any website, whether it is discrimination based on politics, or commercial interests. I have no care about whether Apple can get its websites shown - Apple can take care of itself. I do care whether I or other entrepreneurs can continue to publish our ideas without suddenly needing to bribe ISPs to not ruin the experience of customers using the s…

But why? I understand the rationale for websites that are political or educational non-profits. They need the public to protect them. But why should the public protect, in the name of Internet Utopianism, for-profit enterprises? Why shouldn't for-profit enterprises fend for themselves?

> But why? I understand the rationale for websites that are political or educational non-profits. They need the public to protect them.

By the way, to what extent? Here's a hypothetical to imagine: there's a next-generation Wikipedia which is all video-based, and is, say, responsible for 100x the bandwidth usage of Netflix. Does it still need to be protected?

Secondly, why does it need to be protected? Non-profits still have to pay for the buildings they buy, the equipment they buy, etc., why should they be treated as being special in the internet space? Why shouldn't they pay more just like Netflix, if they're eating just as much resources as Netflix (or more)?

Post reply on HN