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

Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 452 posts

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#321

Post by kortex »

zepto wrote: post #236
nannePOPI wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why you should get something without work. Also nobody forces me or you to use google. It is a free choice, if a better search engine comes up we can use it and nobody forbids you to use other search engine or any site. With net neutrality you are free. Without net neutrality you are bound to the services of the friends of the ISP. You have cable tv 2.0 no more freedom

Net neutrality is a prerequisite for competition, agreed. However a better search engine cannot 'just come up', because Google is the result of billions of dollars of investment over more than 2 decades using data that is not publicly available. Stop pretending otherwise.

What would you rather compete against?

1. Conglomo with 2 decades of competitive advantage

2. Conglomo with 2 decades of competitive advantage and the ability to pay ISPs for preferential treatment?

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#322

Post by guelo »

It's insane the amount of comments on HN of all places that don't understand that the end of Net Neutrality is the end of the open web. People that didn't get a peek at Compuserve have no idea the fire we're playing with here. The open web is the most significant human achievement since the transistor and we're about to kill it happily.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#323

Post by bmelton »

guelo wrote: post #307
bmelton wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, with the caveat that there are also restrictions requiring aggregation as well.

The only thing your link says about aggregate data is that PII is not aggregate data, meaning that aggregate data is exempt from these restrictions.

So, that's applicable to every instance except where being provided to the government (section h), and . It's somewhat circular in that regard. Combined with disclosure restrictions, specifically 2(c)(ii), the net result is that only aggregate disclosure is allowed unless specifically permitted by the end users.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#324

Post by kortex »

marknutter wrote: post #282
nocman wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live near a city this is often true (at least in the US). However, there are at least two problems with this: 1) often the broadband provided by mobile services is capped and/or much more expensive than the services provided by the 1 or at best 2 non-mobile ISPs you have access to. 2) in rural areas, often you do NOT have access to anything close to the same level of broadband speeds. There are a lot of places…

Why do all people need insanely fast broadband speeds and data download limits? I think the fact that a small percentage of the population wants those speeds should not dictate what the larger percentage of the population has to pay for. NN hurts low-income internet users.

> NN hurts low-income internet users.

wat.

This is completely unsubstantiated, and in fact quite likely the opposite. Often, rural WISPs will rely on other ISPs for backhaul. Imagine if ISPs could charge/throttle whatever they want, rather than treat the WISP's backhaul as an opaque pipe?

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#325

Post by natoliniak »

zepto wrote: post #235
natoliniak wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you cannot acquire a corpus of decades of historical searches and click data nor can you employ the thousands of human raters No, but as soon as Google starts abusing their monopoly status by turning into something reminiscent of Alta Vista, a new search engine will sprout up. Google itself grew like wildfire in the late 90s not only because it offered superior search results, but because of the massive global reach…

How will this new search engine 'spring up' if nobody can build a better search engine because the resources are not available? You are right that net neutrality enabled Google's growth, but the barriers to a Google competitor are different now, and far more difficult to overcome than what Google faced. Google is not trusted, but people use it because there is no alternative and the barriers to an alternative being b…

Right now, there is no need for an alternative search engine because Google fully satisfies that market (it is fast accurate and clean). However, once Google gets so comfortable in their position as AOL/Altavista/Myspace once did, and turns into a bloated adware machine, any alternative but functioning search engine will take over, even one that pales in comparison to what google can do today. Net neutrality is the Internet's "invisible hand" that can immediately slap google into shape if they start offering degrading product quality.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#326

Post by zepto »

kortex wrote: post #321
zepto wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Net neutrality is a prerequisite for competition, agreed. However a better search engine cannot 'just come up', because Google is the result of billions of dollars of investment over more than 2 decades using data that is not publicly available. Stop pretending otherwise.

What would you rather compete against? 1. Conglomo with 2 decades of competitive advantage 2. Conglomo with 2 decades of competitive advantage and the ability to pay ISPs for preferential treatment?

Have I argued otherwise?

I am simply asking people to stop claiming that Google can be easily competed against with minimal resources if you are just clever. It's simply false.

Competing against google is a red herring when it comes to net neutrality.

Net neutrality hurts new products that don't compete against Google. It is barely relevant to competing against Google because the other barriers are so high.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#327

Post by wvenable »

bkeroack wrote: post #72

I've written it before and I'll write it again (despite the massive downvotes from those who want to silence dissent): Title II regulation of the Internet is not the net neutrality panacea that many people think it is. That is the same kind of heavy-handed regulation that gave us the sorry copper POTS network we are stuck with today. The free market is the solution, and must be defended against those who want Europea…

> The reason the internet grew into what it is today during the 1990s was precisely because it was so free of regulation and governmental control.

And massive government subsidies. In the early 90's, I lived in a region that basically could not get Internet. It was a dark time for me coming from a more urban area. A few years later every small community has been hooked up with broadband -- almost entirely due to government regulation and money.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#328

Post by zepto »

natoliniak wrote: post #325
zepto wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will this new search engine 'spring up' if nobody can build a better search engine because the resources are not available? You are right that net neutrality enabled Google's growth, but the barriers to a Google competitor are different now, and far more difficult to overcome than what Google faced. Google is not trusted, but people use it because there is no alternative and the barriers to an alternative being b…

Right now, there is no need for an alternative search engine because Google fully satisfies that market (it is fast accurate and clean). However, once Google gets so comfortable in their position as AOL/Altavista/Myspace once did, and turns into a bloated adware machine, any alternative but functioning search engine will take over, even one that pales in comparison to what google can do today. Net neutrality is the I…

Sorry - Google's profitability is so high that if what you say was true, there would be huge incentive for someone to simply compete on price.

The fact that hasn't happened proves you are wrong.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#329

Post by bmelton »

dsp1234 wrote: post #302
bmelton wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The common response to this is that ISPs have access to everything you do (which is true), and that they could sell that (which is false). The regulations being overturned here are ones that have only recently taken effect, and non-anonymized, non-aggregate selling of ISP data is still outlawed by the Cable Communications Act of 1984, which protects subscriber privacy is 47USC § 551[1]. Put simply, neither the most r…

That section of law says they can sell your data with prior written or electronic permission. 47 U.S. Code § 551 (c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a cable operator shall not disclose personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber without the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber concerned So this section of the law, though another might, does not support your statement that "t…

I think you're misreading it, unless you have reason to believe that you've already given your permission. Either way, the regulation that Trump's EO overturns also allowed you to opt in if you wanted to.
Post reply on HN