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

Net neutrality is a “Taliban-like issue”, says Europe’s top digital policymaker

juliareda.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: Net neutrality is a “Taliban-like issue”, says Europe’s top digital policymaker

#51

Post by madaxe_again »

woah wrote: post #23
nemo44x wrote: post #9

This doesn't even make sense. So, if the kids in the back are playing games and the providers pay more to have access than the cars networked safety feature - we're in a worse off place. Also, I'm not so sure there are any issues with capacity and more is being added daily. Capacity for networked devices is not like making capacity for ambulances (not his analogy but essentially his point) and firetrucks. The second…

Whatever the upside or downside of net neutrality may be, the fact is that net neutrality laws are specifically and only about regulating the choices made by routing software. You are claiming that the government not regulating routing software on an extremely fine grained level is somehow "facism". You are as ridiculous as the politician in this article. In fact, net neutrality favors large monopolistic ISPs, while…

You've been busy watching the telco lobby propaganda, then.

I'll grant that it's a powerful and emotional, if utterly false, argument that they put forth.

Re: Net neutrality is a “Taliban-like issue”, says Europe’s top digital policymaker

#52

Post by gojomo »

quanticle wrote: post #41
gojomo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because net paths can be congested, there can be many different ways at different costs to deliver the same bits, and different net applications have different sensitivities to lag/loss, the electrons/bits analogy isn't very applicable. Let ISPs try to abuse their momentary position. They're newish businesses in a rapidly-changing market and technological environment. Not one of them has the same "single provider at…

>They're newish businesses in a rapidly-changing market and technological environment. Not one of them has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. On the contrary, almost all of them have that monopoly, oftentimes to the point where they've negotiated with exclusivity arrangements with municipalities. This means that even if Go…

You seem to be counting only cable companies and the highest-end services to imply a 'monopoly' over internet service where none exists.

Other sets of wires into the home exist and are capable of delivering high-speed internet. (Most notably: legacy copper wires offering DSL.) More wires can be run, just like cable TV was. It'll be even easier now than the cable buildouts of the 60s-80s; the world is richer, awash in capital, with better tools.

Wireless also keeps getting better and is now competitive with wired for most daily internet needs – email, web, VOIP, audio streaming, light video, gaming – all except for bulk HD video. (Just like people have 'cord cut' their cable TV to rely on net entertainment, others are 'wire cutting' their fixed-line internet service, and relying solely on their wireless internet, from one of 3+ providers.) So speaking for the US, most people have 6+ options to get core internet service. That's no "ISP monopoly".

We agree that locally-franchised monopolies over certain wireline services are a problem, where they exist. (OTOH, some localities have enabled multiple cable companies and other competitive wireline services, like Google Fiber.) Those localities with bad policies should undo their mistakes, as they see neighbors and peer-localities having made much better choices. But those scattered problem communities are no reason to compel a specific national service formula on all ISPs everywhere, even where there is competition.

Re: Net neutrality is a “Taliban-like issue”, says Europe’s top digital policymaker

#53

Post by gojomo »

Silhouette wrote: post #38
gojomo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because net paths can be congested, there can be many different ways at different costs to deliver the same bits, and different net applications have different sensitivities to lag/loss, the electrons/bits analogy isn't very applicable. Let ISPs try to abuse their momentary position. They're newish businesses in a rapidly-changing market and technological environment. Not one of them has the same "single provider at…

Not one [ISP] has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. Isn't one of the major arguments for net neutrality that, at least in some parts of the world, the above situation is effectively what is happening today, and therefore the local ISP can effectively hold the entire community hostage?

Where that's true, antitrust action to create competition could make sense, or even perhaps specific regulations against abuses that actually happen. That is, focused on where choice is lacking, and tailored for particular abuses that are observed.

But in the US, most people have 2 or more wired internet options and 3 or more wireless internet options. The feared abuses are almost entirely hypothetical-future-risks. Any attempts to "hold communities hostage" would create massive openings for both competitive marketing and technological countermeasures.

By all means, any local communities being "held hostage" by a single provider should remedy their situation. Locally.

Re: Net neutrality is a “Taliban-like issue”, says Europe’s top digital policymaker

#54

Post by igl »

krylon wrote: post #43
igl wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data caps do not exist for non-mobile Internet connections in Germany. The speed of the Internet is still increasing. We are at a point where i don't even care about getting more. Bandwidths of 250mbit are announced to come to the market in the coming years. I can live with stable 50mbit. The real problem are rural areas where people are stuck with 2mbit/256kbit lines and throwing away net neutrality will not change…

During my training I knew a guy whose ISP sent him a letter threatening to cancel his contract if he kept taking the "flat rate" literally. Admittedly, that was one of the really cheap ISPs whose business model was selling "flat rate" accounts to people who would most likely never make substantial use of them. Also, some ISPs have at least the option in their contracts to throttle the bandwidth after a certain amount…

So far i only heard of o2 (telefonica) having bandwidth throttles and when you can choose o2 you can usually choose other providers. Most cities have local providers with really good connections, stable rates and no overly expensive prices. Kabel Deutschland is a problem. Their 100mbit is a joke and not better than 16mbit from a proper provider. I wonder if its just the cable technology or them throttling traffic randomly. They alsp give me horrendous international routing. Websites not located within europe go through 300 hops are slow and unenjoyable. I had better experiences in the same city with other ISPs.

This is really bad for rural communities. Not only for having not internet but alos for their Economy. I know a company who are stuck with 1mbit and after experimenting with satellite internet and mobile-internet they are pretty much on the brick to move towards the city. Is everyone left behind is suppose to grow potatos for a job?

Re: Net neutrality is a “Taliban-like issue”, says Europe’s top digital policymaker

#55

Post by rakoo »

gojomo wrote: post #11
fragsworth wrote: post #5

He is so completely full of shit and blatantly trying to use rhetoric to justify the fact that he's going to vote for corporate interests that bought and paid for him. I can't help but get angry about this. What's that fallacy called where you fabricate a problem where there isn't one? Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer, and are pretty much unanimous…

"Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer." I'd like to pay $3/month for my Netflix traffic to not count towards any caps. Is that allowed? Now, can I ask my ISP to just bill Netflix, who (with more customers than any US fixed-wire ISP) can negotiate something less than $3/month?

Sure, just don't call that Internet -- Internet is about transporting any type of bytes wherever they may come from.

Re: Net neutrality is a “Taliban-like issue”, says Europe’s top digital policymaker

#56

Post by rakoo »

woah wrote: post #23
nemo44x wrote: post #9

This doesn't even make sense. So, if the kids in the back are playing games and the providers pay more to have access than the cars networked safety feature - we're in a worse off place. Also, I'm not so sure there are any issues with capacity and more is being added daily. Capacity for networked devices is not like making capacity for ambulances (not his analogy but essentially his point) and firetrucks. The second…

Whatever the upside or downside of net neutrality may be, the fact is that net neutrality laws are specifically and only about regulating the choices made by routing software. You are claiming that the government not regulating routing software on an extremely fine grained level is somehow "facism". You are as ridiculous as the politician in this article. In fact, net neutrality favors large monopolistic ISPs, while…

I think you got it backwards -- net neutrality is about making sure anyone can create a new protocol and be hooked to an ISP to serve their content through the Internet.

> Locally based networks providing fast access to their subscribers and filling in the slow times with other traffic? Illegal.

As an ISP subscriber, why would I want something other than what I decided on ?

> Decentralized mesh networks allowing people to "mine" cryptocurrency with a transmitter on their roof? Illegal.

I don't see what's illegal here. If you have a transmitter on your roof you are your own ISP. It is perfectly fine to not allow a kind of traffic if you're your own ISP.

Re: Net neutrality is a “Taliban-like issue”, says Europe’s top digital policymaker

#57

Post by AnthonyMouse »

gojomo wrote: post #33
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd like to pay $3/month for my Netflix traffic to not count towards any caps. Is that allowed? No, because it's discriminating against non-Netflix traffic. But there is certainly nothing wrong with paying the market rate for all your traffic to not count towards any caps (i.e. an uncapped connection).

Thank you for the clear, honest answer. So the great-grandparent post is misleading, and those in favor of government-enforced "net neutrality" do want to limit what I am "allowed to pay for as a consumer".

> Thank you for the clear, honest answer. So the great-grandparent post is misleading, and those in favor of government-enforced "net neutrality" do want to limit what I am "allowed to pay for as a consumer".

Phrasing it like that is political maneuvering. There is nothing you cannot get. No application is made not possible by network neutrality. There are only some things which, if you get them, the ISP has to provide for all your data and not just data for a particular application or source.

Re: Net neutrality is a “Taliban-like issue”, says Europe’s top digital policymaker

#58

Post by gojomo »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #57
gojomo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the clear, honest answer. So the great-grandparent post is misleading, and those in favor of government-enforced "net neutrality" do want to limit what I am "allowed to pay for as a consumer".

> Thank you for the clear, honest answer. So the great-grandparent post is misleading, and those in favor of government-enforced "net neutrality" do want to limit what I am "allowed to pay for as a consumer". Phrasing it like that is political maneuvering. There is nothing you cannot get. No application is made not possible by network neutrality. There are only some things which, if you get them, the ISP has to provi…

No, the regulations have made it illegal to purchase a service I might want to buy (or sell), instead requiring the purchase of a different "guaranteed neutral" service instead.

This new federally-mandated kind of service, as it meets extra legal constraints and prevents certain kinds of side-payments from happening, is almost certainly going to be more expensive and available from a smaller set of fewer, larger providers. (Title II/common-carrier regulation does nothing to create new provider competition, but rather assumes that monopoly is the only possibility and cements it into place.)

Re: Net neutrality is a “Taliban-like issue”, says Europe’s top digital policymaker

#59

Post by gojomo »

rawrRAWR wrote: post #46
gojomo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the clear, honest answer. So the great-grandparent post is misleading, and those in favor of government-enforced "net neutrality" do want to limit what I am "allowed to pay for as a consumer".

You can't sell yourself as a slave, though too.

The question of whether the restrictions are desirable is separate from whether "Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer."

Regulatory-NN advocates do in fact want to legally ban a class of services, with unmetered/prioritized data paths for certain applications (like perhaps "Wikipedia Zero"), that would have willing customers if available on the market.

Re: Net neutrality is a “Taliban-like issue”, says Europe’s top digital policymaker

#60

Post by gojomo »

rakoo wrote: post #55
gojomo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer." I'd like to pay $3/month for my Netflix traffic to not count towards any caps. Is that allowed? Now, can I ask my ISP to just bill Netflix, who (with more customers than any US fixed-wire ISP) can negotiate something less than $3/month?

Sure, just don't call that Internet -- Internet is about transporting any type of bytes wherever they may come from.

The proposed NN rules would be much less harmful if they allowed providers and consumers to consciously opt-out, as you seem to propose, by simply using different clear language.
Post reply on HN