Defending the Open Internet • Hacker News Board

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#41

Post by pedrocr » Mon, May 12, 2014, 9:28 AM UTC

_red wrote: post #19

majormajor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, NN won't fix the issue. Even more, most NN supporters cannot actually state what they envision such laws to even do. If you ask, they will give you handwavy answers like "provide equal access"...then they will be unable / unwilling to answer any of the obvious questions that follow on from that (ie. what if I pay for faster access, what does that mean for others who don't? Is all QoS illegal now? How will NN be m…

Here's my proposal:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7644339

It would fix the issues of neutrality at the interconnect point. Additional rules may be needed to prevent an ISP from throttling a specific port/protocol/service inside it's own network, but this would fix the current hot issue (blocking Youtube, Netflix, etc).

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#42

Post by pedrocr » Mon, May 12, 2014, 9:33 AM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #20

vfclists wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these costs? Are the bottlenecks at the junction between the ISP and the customer, or at the junction between the ISP and the content provider? Did Comcast have purchase and install new equipment to boost Netflix speeds, or did they just flip a switch on already existing equipment to open some throttles?

Presumably someone had to pay something to set up a direct interconnect between Netflix and Comcast to bypass the delivery networks that were used before. But more generally, I'd refer you back to my original post in this thread, about the costs coming from Comcast's lack of viable competition in most markets. Without fixing that issue, the cost is going to be what the consumer will bear instead of what the market wi…

> Without fixing that issue, the cost is going to be what the consumer will bear instead of what the market will bear, net neutrality regulations or not.

Actually the issue is quite the opposite. The ISPs backed themselves into a corner with unlimited plans. They can't raise prices based on usage so they're trying the next best thing, shaking down the other side of the connection. It's much easier to play hardball with Netflix than with thousands of customers, who may just say "well, if I'm going to pay that much for this connection I may as well cancel cable and use Netflix/torrents exclusively. So imposing neutrality at the interconnect would actually solve the current issue.

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#43

Post by rayiner » Mon, May 12, 2014, 1:01 PM UTC

bandushrew wrote: post #39

rayiner wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're using very biased language ("bribe"). Its not bribery for a for-profit company to demand payment for other company's who want to reach its users. That the basic premise of Facebook's or LinkedIn's business model after all. You've clearly picked a side, but why should we? I understand that people on here have an interest in startups succeeding against big companies, but why does that rise to the level of public…

It is successful content creators who have a lot of leverage. Aspiring content creators (and distributors) have none. "These are just all for-profit companies hoping to make a bunch of money off consumers." Unfortunately you have completely ignored all discussion of The Internet being a communications platform, and not merely a commercial platform. Ignoring that point entirely has allowed you to continue making your…

> Unfortunately you have completely ignored all discussion of The Internet being a communications platform, and not merely a commercial platform.

I'm not ignoring this point, I just don't buy it. The internet is mostly just a bunch of privately owned networks, operated for profit. I think it has public-interest value as a communications platform for certain non-profit enterprises like Wikipedia, etc, and maybe we need legislative protection of those functions. But I don't think ensuring that some new for-profit startup can function without paying the people that own the wires rises to the level of "public interest" even if they aren't the size of a Netflix or Facebook. I think this is primarily where we disagree: once you're for-profit, you're on your own.

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#44

Post by selmnoo » Mon, May 12, 2014, 1:20 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #43

bandushrew wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is successful content creators who have a lot of leverage. Aspiring content creators (and distributors) have none. "These are just all for-profit companies hoping to make a bunch of money off consumers." Unfortunately you have completely ignored all discussion of The Internet being a communications platform, and not merely a commercial platform. Ignoring that point entirely has allowed you to continue making your…

> Unfortunately you have completely ignored all discussion of The Internet being a communications platform, and not merely a commercial platform. I'm not ignoring this point, I just don't buy it. The internet is mostly just a bunch of privately owned networks, operated for profit. I think it has public-interest value as a communications platform for certain non-profit enterprises like Wikipedia, etc, and maybe we nee…

> I think it has public-interest value as a communications platform for certain non-profit enterprises like Wikipedia, etc, and maybe we need legislative protection of those functions.

I think at some point the line between non-profit and for-profit gets very hard to draw. E.g., NFL is a non-profit organization, yet intuitively you would think that they should pay for their streaming services that are very much like Netflix. There are also a lot for-profits which are less entertainment oriented and more education oriented, and vice versa. Heck, I actually use Netflix almost exclusively for watching 'How it's made' and the documentaries it has. If everyone used Netflix like me, would it fall it fall under the provision of being protected againt anti-NN? What about loads of other services which really are like this, but are for-profit?

So, it seems to be a compromise either way, if you view it as a commercial platform or a communications platform. Personally, I'd rather err on it being the latter.

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#45

Post by bandushrew » Mon, May 12, 2014, 5:31 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #43

bandushrew wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is successful content creators who have a lot of leverage. Aspiring content creators (and distributors) have none. "These are just all for-profit companies hoping to make a bunch of money off consumers." Unfortunately you have completely ignored all discussion of The Internet being a communications platform, and not merely a commercial platform. Ignoring that point entirely has allowed you to continue making your…

> Unfortunately you have completely ignored all discussion of The Internet being a communications platform, and not merely a commercial platform. I'm not ignoring this point, I just don't buy it. The internet is mostly just a bunch of privately owned networks, operated for profit. I think it has public-interest value as a communications platform for certain non-profit enterprises like Wikipedia, etc, and maybe we nee…

This is the first time you have responded to it. You were ignoring it.

honestly, that is not where we disagree. We disagree entirely on the primary function of the internet.

You apparently see it, already, as just a series of walled gardens.

Unfortunately your lack of awareness around what it does, is driving your uninformed opinions around what kinds of protection it needs.

For the sake of my own sanity, I am gonna assume that you are simply playing devils advocate.