321–330 of 415 posts
anti-NN: "If you let the federal government dictate how packets are treated.... then you let the federal government dictate how packets are treated. Perhaps you are familiar with Ed Snowden, Wikileaks and recent revelations about the NSA etc? no concern at all eh? You just want your Netflizzzzzz. Ok then"
pro NN: "Oh my god some service I want may charge me with a pricing scheme I don't understand/like! Let's get government bureaucrats to control that for me!" anti-NN: "If you let the federal government dictate how packets are treated.... then you let the federal government dictate how packets are treated. Perhaps you are familiar with Ed Snowden, Wikileaks and recent revelations about the NSA etc? no concern at all e…
It fixes more than just the net neutrality problem, it also fixes the lack of infrastructure improvement by making big ISPs have a monopoly on last mile improvements for the first year or two - they're greatly incentivized to keep improving infrastructure and speeds or lose customers to the smaller guys who can run leaner. It's a pretty clever regulatory model that manipulates incentives quite well.
I'm sure there are flaws, regulatory models are rarely perfect, but from what I've seen over the last 10 years going from 5mbit DSL to gigabit fibre for only about 1.5x the cost, I'd say it's doing a pretty good job, without any net neutrality enforcement or any complicated legislation - just by giving the regulatory authority the ability to compel ISPs to lease lines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The equipment that would be modifying the traffic would be in privately-owned exchanges or the ISP's datacenters. None of it would happen on the fiber crossing over (or running under) state owned land.
By that same logic, there should be no laws governing radio broadcasting, since the equipment that emits the photons is located in a private building, not in the public airspace through which the photons travel. Yet the FCC still exists.
By your logic, the FCC should regulate a conversation two people were having in person just by virtue of them being on public land. Yet the FCC does not. The FCC also does not regulate the signs on the sides of buildings, even though light is reflected from them to public airspace.
1. They also have been given the power to provide censorship of public spectrums as well because some idiots deemed swear words to be scary.
The same thing that caused the Indian public to reject internet.org curated by Facebook.
Once we get massive consolidation, whether of banks, telcos, cable companies, social networks, phone makers or whatever else is "too big to fail" then your choice is illusory in the first place. Title I vs Title II isn't the most meaningful choice.
Originally the Internet was designed with no single point of failure, but now email, the web, streaming video, etc. has been centralized.
What we need to do is greenlight technology to enable decentralized:
+ Social Networking instead of server farms whose engineers post on highscalability
+ Mesh Networking instead of cellphone carriers whose networks go down in an emergency
+ Power Generation instead of a power grid that can cut you off anytime
Bitcoin decentralized money. Git decentralized version control. Look at how the power and trust dynamics shifted. That's what we need.
The best way to do that is to fund open source hardware and software projects that will enable this technology to be widely available, and then regulators will have to expand their frameworks to allow it, as they did with bitcoin.
Disclaimer: I am the architect of http://github.com/Qbix/Platform
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of all, they are pro getting rich(er). They wouldn't be where they are today if that was not their top priority in life.
True, I always wonder what it must be like to be those billionaires because I would have retired after my first 10 million.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "net neutrality" extremism So the NN side are the extremists. Not the side that wants to radically change the way the internet has worked for 40 years. Not the side that wants to upend the most innovative segment of the economy in favor of dinausour monoplies, radically reshaping the foundations of billions of dollars in investment and billions more in created wealth. Those guys are "conservative" right?
reasonable political ideologies can lead to "extreme" outcomes. (I consider an extreme outcome to be one that requires human nature to change, in order to be successful.) Since I think bureaucrats are gonna bureaucrat, handing them power over anything is a terrible idea. Are companies good? no, many of them are terrible. But if enough people don't like a company, the company ceases to exist. I've yet to see a similar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And once they found it, they'd charge exactly one cent less.
This whole chain is just parroting reddit comments without thinking it through. You act as though there is nothing that happens with market forces other that monopoly corruption. Let's start with the fact that by market cap, Google is 590B and Comcast is 177B, so simply buying ISPs is a real possibility. You also just out of hand dismiss any other possible outcomes. So, here some off the top of my head. * Local munic…
Do you know of academic/scholarly articles or books on this topic?
Net neutrality strikes me as a topic with a lot more scope for disagreement on both goals and policy than the hardcore pro net-neutrality crowd admits. It's somehow taken as an article of faith that a non-market solution would be best, even as we're living in a time with more last-mile competition than ever before (due to wireless).
Further, I don't see the Internet as a "public good". RF spectrum is a public good; it exists in a purely physical sense, and can be used by anyone, any time, anywhere. Internet infrastructure takes massive capital investment over many years, as well as ongoing expensive maintenance, and there's no reason someone shouldn't earn a reasonable rate of return on that invested capital.
> Doing this allows the government to ensure a level playing field In theory this is a good argument. In practice, my experience is that this argument causes people to write off net neutrality as just being something that's about letting tech bros make lots of money. I've even heard this from folks in the tech industry, who really should know better. An argument that may be more convincing is that the Internet is the…
The internet is not free and open because some companies are complying with regulations. The internet is free and open because that's what the internet is. If ISP's, content providers, whoever else wants to provide services which aren't free and open then they're not part of the internet. It's sad if lots of people lose internet access because Comcast stops offering it, but the internet won't go away. Other companies…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not possible on an https connection and HSTS preloading prevents ISPs from downgrading secure connections.
In the near future: "To provide optimum security and privacy for your internet browsing, you must now install our Comcastic™ Special Magic Certificate®. Failure to install our certificate will result in browsing being restricted. If you don't like it, go to a competitor."