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

Keep the Internet Open

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 415 posts

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#61

Post by throwaway399 »

confounded wrote: post #49

Because of the massive amount of consolidation over the last few years, the death of Net Neutrality would be the best competitive moat imaginable for Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. While all their CEOs will make faint noises in favor of Net Neutrality, SV outspends Wall Street 2:1 on lobbying[1], the goal of which is to cement monopoly status, not to make the world a better place. Most of it goes to Republicans. Thin…

Depends on the company. Sometimes most of it goes to democrats:

Google for ex - https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00428623

Microsoft also almost 2x to dems - https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000115&l...

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#62

Post by simplehuman »

ryandrake wrote: post #57
RangerScience wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's needed for "another Aaron"? I know he had a pre-existing following; is that required? Do you think someone could fill those shoes this time around, starting from scratch?

> What's needed for "another Aaron"? Courage. The cynic in me answers "Someone who doesn't mind being becoming a target?" I notice nobody is jumping up and down volunteering to be "another Assange" or "another Snowden". Different topics but similar level of fortitude needed.

And best of luck finding these in immigrant rich silicon valley who are already petrified of losing their visa with the new government change.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#63

Post by rdl »

ryandrake wrote: post #46
pizzetta wrote: post #38

Not to put a fly in the soup, but don't utilities charge different rates for different customers? for Example PG&E might have one rate for residential, one for small biz and one for large biz? Not to say that net neutrality is different but comparing it to utilities may not be appropriate given diff classes of customers are granted different kinds of rates and service.

But they don't have one rate for powering refrigerators, a different rate for washing machines, one rate for computers, etc. Nor do they have one rate for Kenmore refrigerators, a different rate for Maytag refrigerators, one rate for Samsung refrigerators.

They do charge discounts for certain types of equipment (cars, medical devices). I don't think there are any differences between equipment vendors, though.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#64

Post by Ajedi32 »

alex_young wrote: post #52
seibelj wrote: post #37

Net Neutrality absolutists need to tone down their rhetoric. When NN activists say zero rating is unfair, they are speaking from an ivory tower. It is better for a poor Iraqi to get free Wikipedia even though that hurts other upstart wikis, than for poor Iraqis to have no Wikipedia at all. Once you accept this premise, you must then accept that exceptions to NN exist. Once you accept that, you must then take every si…

That argument seems pretty contrived. It's really hard to imagine a situation where Wikipedia is delivered to Iraqis on some kind of special limited internet pipe. What would the business proposition be? It's not so hard to imagine the harm that comes from Verizon or AT&T picking winners based on the relationships they have and blocking innovation.

> It's really hard to imagine a situation where Wikipedia is delivered to Iraqis on some kind of special limited internet pipe.

FWIW, that isn't just a hypothetical situation; it's already happening. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#65

Post by sidlls »

seibelj wrote: post #37

Net Neutrality absolutists need to tone down their rhetoric. When NN activists say zero rating is unfair, they are speaking from an ivory tower. It is better for a poor Iraqi to get free Wikipedia even though that hurts other upstart wikis, than for poor Iraqis to have no Wikipedia at all. Once you accept this premise, you must then accept that exceptions to NN exist. Once you accept that, you must then take every si…

I don't accept either the assertion regarding being in an ivory tower or the premise regarding Wikipedia and Iraqis.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#66

Post by seibelj »

bo1024 wrote: post #59
seibelj wrote: post #37

Net Neutrality absolutists need to tone down their rhetoric. When NN activists say zero rating is unfair, they are speaking from an ivory tower. It is better for a poor Iraqi to get free Wikipedia even though that hurts other upstart wikis, than for poor Iraqis to have no Wikipedia at all. Once you accept this premise, you must then accept that exceptions to NN exist. Once you accept that, you must then take every si…

> It is better for a poor Iraqi to get free Wikipedia even though that hurts other upstart wikis, than for poor Iraqis to have no Wikipedia at all. I don't accept this premise. This is a false dichotomy because these are not the only two options. There is a third, better option: to get access to the entire internet. A company offering you that choice is using a classic game-theoretic bargaining approach: commit to on…

If you are a poor American on a Lifeline phone (free phone provided by the government) with a very limited data plan, no one is (at this time) willing to subsidize unlimited services for this user. But maybe some companies, for their services, are willing to subsidize them. And in my opinion, it's better for the poor person to have access to some services than no services.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#67

Post by bo1024 »

I think the appliance analogy is a pretty good one. But now imagine that on top of being able to charge different amounts for different brands of appliances, the electric company happens to manufacture their own line of not-so-quality stoves, refrigerators, etc.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#68

Post by no_protocol »

> There's an argument that Internet Service Providers should be able to charge a metered rate based on usage. I'm not sure whether I agree with this, but in principle it seems ok. That's how we pay for public utilities.

I can monitor and control the power usage of my electrical appliances.

I can control outgoing network requests from my networked devices.

I cannot control what is sent to my network from the outside. It doesn't make much sense to be charged for what someone else sends to me. Even if I shut off my network device, a particularly rude service might just continue blindly sending data my way, running up my costs with no way to opt out.

Typical postal mail delivery is paid for by the sender, not the recipient. It becomes complicated here.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#69

Post by andy_ppp »

Why would anyone buy internet access from people charging like this/breaking their services? Are ISPs monopolies in the US and if so wouldn't stopping these monopolies be the surest way, allowing the market to decide a free Internet is what gets you customers?

All that this will do is move people towards obfuscation of their Internet access through technology. I say let them try to break the web; there will be technological solutions to stop this immediately I bet...

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#70

Post by RodericDay »

seibelj wrote: post #37

Net Neutrality absolutists need to tone down their rhetoric. When NN activists say zero rating is unfair, they are speaking from an ivory tower. It is better for a poor Iraqi to get free Wikipedia even though that hurts other upstart wikis, than for poor Iraqis to have no Wikipedia at all. Once you accept this premise, you must then accept that exceptions to NN exist. Once you accept that, you must then take every si…

I resent the accusation.

It's like saying the poor Iraqi is better off getting free coca-cola, and getting locked into coca-cola for the rest of his life, than actually getting water (and, if they desire, the possibility of coca-cola).

A country growing its infrastructure, which is apparently not yet essential, under the perverse influence of a non-neutral playing field, is a country that will have immense trouble shaking that influence off in the future. As an example, look at America and its relationship to cars vs. public transport.

If you want me to "bite a bullet", here I'm biting it: The Iraqi is better off without internet. Give him true choice or let him continue to be free of the delusion that Facebook == The Internet.

Post reply on HN