Join the Battle for Net Neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#381

Post by erk__ » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 10:09 AM UTC

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.

The netherlands, which is one of the countries known to have some of the best net neutrality laws does for example have the pirate bay blocked, and it have been through the courts multiple times. There are many other countries with net neutrality who also blocks sites like the pirate bay.

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

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#382

Post by kadenshep » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 1:19 PM UTC

idibidiart wrote: post #344

kadenshep wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really google's problem. You've done what they wanted you to do. Search! The problem will most likely exist on any other search engine at that point -- if you care to use them in the first place.

I don't buy that it isn't be there problem. The UX will be broke. What good is a search engine if I can't get anywhere. Just because you're sure of your opinion, it doesn't mean it's correct Yet you assert ... :)

>Just because you're sure of your opinion

It's not an opinion. Next time have a hard think about what you're actually saying when you have to resort to emoji filled platitudes.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#383

Post by neuterlize » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 2:11 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #350

neuterlize wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn't allow any paid prioritization, even if such prioritization isn't anti-competitive. Please give an example of paid prioritization that isn't anti-competitive.

Auction-based prioritization of bandwidth. Something akin to bitcoin transaction fees. If Netflix wants to pay extra so they stream video in real time that makes sense. Notably, this is more or less how the internet already works. Content Distribution Networks pay for access to ISP local networks, which gives them a fast lane to customers. It's how virtually all content is already distributed.

> Auction-based prioritization of bandwidth.

That's a really, really contrived example.

Firstly, it assumes that bandwidth is scarce, which it isn't in the access network.

Secondly, the incentives don't align. Everybody would bid maximum bid during prime time and zero at all other times, which is the same as not running an auction at all.

You either have the bandwidth to serve your customers during prime time or you don't. There is no middle ground.

Any other examples you'd like to try?

> If Netflix wants to pay extra so they stream video in real time that makes sense.

No, it does not make sense. It's not Netflix that wants to stream video in real time. It's the broadband subscriber that sends a request to Netflix and asks for a stream to be delivered to them.

The subscriber already pays for the broadband and the ability to stream. It is not reasonable to ask them to pay more. Also, in this day and age, in no way, shape or form is it acceptable for an Internet connection classified as broadband not to be able to stream video.

> Notably, this is more or less how the internet already works.

No, it's really not.

> Content Distribution Networks pay for access to ISP local networks, which gives them a fast lane to customers.

This is incorrect. CDNs may pay ISPs to colocate on-net on their networks, or they may not. CDNs may just as well colocate for free or not colocate at all. An ISP may peer with a CDN or get access to a CDN via an IX.

Nothing says the CDN has to pay. In fact, the ISP might even pay the CDN for a node. Or the ISP may even not qualify for a CDN node.

CDNs have nothing to do with fast lanes. CDNs work because of physical proximity.

> It's how virtually all content is already distributed.

A lot of content is delivered via CDNs, but not necessarily on-net.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#384

Post by unityByFreedom » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 3:28 PM UTC

cobbzilla wrote: post #376

unityByFreedom wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're in a state of regulatory right now and it is a worse world. It's not hypothetical

are you implying that despite the regulatory capture that has already occurred, somehow further regulations will not subsequently be captured? there is a saying about the person who does the same thing again and again expecting a different result.

> are you implying that despite the regulatory capture that has already occurred, somehow further regulations will not subsequently be captured? there is a saying about the person who does the same thing again and again expecting a different result.

Are you implying that even after you solve a problem, there are still other problems, so the best thing to do is to do nothing? There is a word for people who do nothing and criticize those who act.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#385

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 25, 2017, 7:57 AM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #66

dllu wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some organizations such as the Wikimedia Foundation, Google, and Facebook believe that their services are more important than others. As such, they consider themselves deserving of cheaper, free, or the "fast lane" internet, especially in less developed areas without sufficient infrastructure to serve all websites. The rationale is that providing a limited set of websites for free is better than if those areas have n…

Isn't Google's project loon open internet, compared to Facebooks free basics?

[deleted]

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#386

Post by cobbzilla » Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 5:49 AM UTC

unityByFreedom wrote: post #384

cobbzilla wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are you implying that despite the regulatory capture that has already occurred, somehow further regulations will not subsequently be captured? there is a saying about the person who does the same thing again and again expecting a different result.

> are you implying that despite the regulatory capture that has already occurred, somehow further regulations will not subsequently be captured? there is a saying about the person who does the same thing again and again expecting a different result. Are you implying that even after you solve a problem, there are still other problems, so the best thing to do is to do nothing? There is a word for people who do nothing…

I never implied that there were no problems, please do not put words in my mouth. My point was merely that centralizing control of the Internet is exactly what the oligarchs want, and you are carrying water for them. Why is the EFF against NN while AT&T is for it? Thanks for helping the multi-billion dollar company, I'm sure they appreciate it.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#387

Post by mediocrejoker » Wed, Nov 29, 2017, 4:55 PM UTC

hitekker wrote: post #328

mediocrejoker wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a more nuanced libertarian argument that you haven't mentioned, and that is not so much "I am against all regulation" as much as "I think regulation is generally bad for efficiency and/or disagree with it on moral grounds so I want to be convinced why it is necessary." In other words, I want to be convinced that: 1) There is a problem here at all. The regulation that is being repealed was only introd…

You say you want to be convinced but when reasonable answers have been supplied in previous threads, by respected figures like jedberg, you seem to have ignored them. Similarly, this post also doesn't read as the beginning of a debate or a discussion; it reads as the end of one. All three of your demands taken together imply "Net Neutrality doesn't matter. If any regulation is not perfect then we should get rid of it…

Can you link me to the replies that I'm ignoring? I can't find any comments by jedberg in this thread.

Also I don't think it's fair to say that since I'm not convinced by what you consider reasonable answers therefore I'm the one who is wrong, instead of entertaining the possibility that those answers are not as convincing as you think, to someone who isn't already convinced.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#388

Post by eadmund » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 2:50 AM UTC

Gracana wrote: post #268

rhino369 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling something a state-enforced oligopoly because you need permits is a huge stretch. In almost all jurisdictions a new company can apply for an ISP franchise. I have more choices for an ISP than I have choices for a cell phone OS. Should the government enforce app-store neutrality. I have less choices for search engines. How about search engine/adsense neutrality. The truth is net neutrality is both underbroad an…

> I have more choices for an ISP than I have choices for a cell phone OS. That's lovely for you, but here's the whole picture: In the latest FCC Internet Access Services report, 13% of census blocks with housing units (that is, empty census blocks are not considered) have three or more broadband providers. 37% percent have only one option, and 21% have no provider at all. Having a choice is not the norm. https://apps…

> In the latest FCC Internet Access Services report, 13% of census blocks with housing units (that is, empty census blocks are not considered) have three or more broadband providers. 37% percent have only one option, and 21% have no provider at all. Having a choice is not the norm.

You left out the percentage with two providers, which must be 29% (100-37-21-13), which means that 42% of housing units have a choice between two or more providers. That's not the norm, and it should be better, but given how much of the U.S. is empty space it's not utterly terrible.