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

391–400 of 452 posts

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#391

Post by Jayakumark »

shawnee_ wrote: post #65

Net neutrality is fundamental to free speech. Without net neutrality, big companies could censor your voice and make it harder to speak up online. Net neutrality has been called the “First Amendment of the Internet.” Not just harder. Infinitely more dangerous. Probably the scariest implications for NN being gutted are those around loss of anonymity through the Internet. ISPs who are allowed to sell users' browsing hi…

We will fight now, but sooner it will come back. We won the last battle but what about this and the ones that will come if we win again. This is going to be never ending battle until we lose and corporations win. There should be a strong amendment with irreversible clause on Title II .

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#393

Post by KZeillmann »

stdgy wrote: post #185
jpadkins wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and why do you only have comcast as a choice? Government granted monopolies. Void all local contracts with ISPs (cable or telco), and you will have choices.

Rewind. Why did the government grant monopolies to these companies in the first place? To entice them to invest in their area because nobody else would. Infrastructure isn't software development. It requires billions of dollars of capital investment. That investment isn't going to go to many areas unless it's nearly guaranteed a return, hence the labyrinth of monopolistic guarantees bestowed upon ISPs. It's not clear…

Not to mention that big-name ISPs like Comcast will litigate their smaller competitors out of existence.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#394

Post by [deleted] »

jameslk wrote: post #121
specializeded wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A free market solution to net neutrality is a talking point, regardless of how a specific comment is formatted. You missed this part: " without feigning this absurd obtuseness ". And for the record I'm addressing the dopey false concern, not your stance on net neutrality. Have an honest day.

It's unfortunate you don't seem to appreciate the difference between rhetoric and a question. I skipped your baseless accusation of "feigning this absurd obtuseness" since it was flamebait and wasn't worth addressing. Being insulting isn't really appreciated in this community.

[deleted]

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#395

Post by ufo »

manigandham wrote: post #206
sqeaky wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't, but the ISP still know what pages you went to. If they want to determine your political leanings your browsing history is enough.

How would the ISP know what pages you went to over HTTPS? Only the domain name would be available, through SNI/DNS.

Just the domain names is already a lot of information...

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#396

Post by rtx »

eggnet wrote: post #374
weberc2 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Competition is not the solution to all problems. Of course not. I didn't say or even imply as much. > However, it would probably eliminate the need for net neutrality. In the meantime, we need it. Maybe, but I think the importance people place on this is exaggerated. If you want it as a stopgap, fine. But let's not pretend that NN is going to seriously impact any of the issues discussed in this article.

The problem with your argument is that a significant number of HN readers, I among them, work in the Internet interconnect industry. Network Neutrality didn't go far enough. Most major eyeball networks in the US charge a high fee (should be zero) for interconnecting with content providers. And even after fees have been agreed to, drag their feet on installing the ports or limit port availability. We should be looking…

We should also ban CDNs, they give unfair advantages to big guys.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#397

Post by rtx »

super_mario wrote: post #89
weberc2 wrote: post #23

I wasn't impressed with this article; it reads like fear mongering. More importantly, I don't think the fix is regulation, I think it's better privacy tech + increased competition via elimination of local monopolies. Do we really want to depend on government to enforce privacy on the Internet?

This is not about government enforcing privacy on the internet. That is false analogy, but even if it were good analogy, it would still fail. Do you want government enforcing your personal security (also known as policing)? Would it not be better if guys who are richer and can afford more bullies, intimidate you and ask for money while you are trying to walk by their house/business etc? Net neutrality is about each I…

Youtube already has an unfair advantage, which new video services can't match.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#398

Post by rocqua »

shkkmo wrote: post #386
rocqua wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that NN would be less important if there were more consumer ISPs around. Specifically if consumers had more choice. I should note that competition amongst ISPs wouldn't do much to prevent zero-rating, which is still problematically anti-competitive.

Well, NN also helps make it easier for new ISPs to compete. If there is good content (netflix) that is not owned or exclusive to other ISPs then it is much easier to launch your own ISP.

I believe that almost the entire barrier to entry for ISPs is the last mile. Network Neutrality does very little to remove that barrier.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#399

Post by rtx »

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #301
rhino369 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are rolling out Docsis 3.1 in pretty wide areas. Sooner rather than later you'll be able to get way over 60mbit. And 60 mbit is nothing to sneeze at. >I don't want or need my ISP to be innovative. I want a dumb, no BS pipe that offers a decent price without bundling, since I don't need tv or a phone No, you don't want it to be a dumb pipe. You want an ever increasingly fast service. If they installed a dumb pipe…

> And 60 mbit is nothing to sneeze at. It's substandard, especially when living in the 2nd largest city in the US. It's nealy unacceptable when the upload speeds are a paltry 5Mbps. I want, a network that simply provides simple bandwidth and network speed while being completely neutral with regard to the services and applications the customer accesses that offers if not symmetrical, usable upload speeds. A dumb pipe…

Are those things profitable.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#400

Post by Chaebixi »

rhino369 wrote: post #273
billions wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government handed comcast monopoly over the wire to your door. Now we're sweeping the problem under the rug by policing what goes down the wire. The way to get more choices is to let anyone compete to be your ISP, by liberating the wire. Remember how long distance phone service improved in the 90's?

Comcast is the big ISP in most areas because it was unregulated. DSL was regulated under title II and cable wasn't. So capital flowed to cable companies who weren't subject to invasive regulations. That's why cable internet is so popular in America compared to the rest of the world. It wasn't until telecom ISPs were classified title I that Verizon and ATT decided to upgrade their dsl services.

> That's why cable internet is so popular in America compared to the rest of the world.

I'm not so sure about that. The coax used for cable is a higher-bandwidth cabling than the POTS twisted-pair lines used for telephone service, so the cable companies started out with better infrastructure. DSL also has distance/bandwidth limits ("distance from the central office") that cable internet doesn't have, so many people are unable to get DSL that rus at acceptable speeds. Cable television has also been widespread and popular in the US since the 80s, at least. I'm not sure if that's true in countries were DSL has been popular.

I, personally, would attribute cable internet's popularity (in the US) to the technical superiority of the legacy infrastructure it is built on.

Post reply on HN