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

Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 178 posts

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#61

Post by ClassyJacket »

lumisota wrote: post #60
sausman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my biggest qualm with building a company aimed to sell (either to public markets or another company). You are binding yourself to pursue as much profit as possible through whatever legal means possible. Even if those legal means go against everything you stand for, you have to pursue them because you have a fiduciary duty.

"Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.": http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/13-354.html

However, if you do not, your investors can sue you and win, no?

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#62

Post by redial »

weberc2 wrote: post #26
RangerScience wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to downvote you because of how intensely I disagree with everything you're saying, but you're saying it nicely so I won't. Instead - The major concern about losing NN is that instead of just paying for volume of data, I'll also be required to pay based on type and/or source of that data, and that the entities providing the data will also be required to pay based on type and/or destination. Do you think this co…

I'm not opposed to NN, but your phrasing piqued my curiosity: Why is it bad that ISPs charge us based on type/source of data? Should grocery stores charge us by volume (mass?) of food instead of by type/source/etc? If aggregating costs is indeed more moral, why should it be enforced by law (as opposed to the food example)? Providing robust answers to these questions should strengthen the NN position.

It is not bad per se, but it is not what the internet is. The moment they start charging based on content is the moment that it becomes something different.

Right now is like a public road, with free and equal access for every body, and thus, an economy can be built around it. If you change it to the store model, it morphs from an economy to a business, and businesses are not capable of supporting an entire economy built on top, so it won't.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#63

Post by lumisota »

ClassyJacket wrote: post #61
lumisota wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.": http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/13-354.html

However, if you do not, your investors can sue you and win, no?

Sure; companies are required to generate value for shareholders. That does not necessarily mean profit.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#64

Post by phil21 »

sausman wrote: post #36
RangerScience wrote: post #11

If you're a founder and looking to sell your company, is there anything you can do to guard yourself against these kinds of situations? I imagine it might be some particular part of a golden handcuff / golden parachute deal, but making it work for everyone involved sounds super hard...

This is my biggest qualm with building a company aimed to sell (either to public markets or another company). You are binding yourself to pursue as much profit as possible through whatever legal means possible. Even if those legal means go against everything you stand for, you have to pursue them because you have a fiduciary duty.

> Even if those legal means go against everything you stand for, you have to pursue them because you have a fiduciary duty.

This is not true, and never has been even a little bit true (in the US). It's a commonly misquoted trope.

Assuming your company happens to be public (the only way this matters) - you still can do whatever you like as controlling CEO short of outright fraud or negligence. If you decide to switch your Fortune 500 company to it's sole goal being charity - you could definitely do that without going to jail or being liable for anything.

You might lose your job though.

If you own a private company you started yourself and own the equity? You can do everything up to and including burning the building down.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#65

Post by sausman »

lumisota wrote: post #60
sausman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my biggest qualm with building a company aimed to sell (either to public markets or another company). You are binding yourself to pursue as much profit as possible through whatever legal means possible. Even if those legal means go against everything you stand for, you have to pursue them because you have a fiduciary duty.

"Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.": http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/13-354.html

Interesting, I thought you had to be a special type of corporation for that. My language is a bit strong then.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#66

Post by dpark »

steego wrote: post #38
fiatjaf wrote: post #5

Net neutrality makes internet more expensive for everybody so Torrent and Netflix users can be subsidized. It looks right, but it is WRONG to "defend" it using law and force.

I upvoted this vapid opinion because I think it needs to be addressed rather than censored by lazy thinkers. Making the Internet more expensive today so we can accommodate high traffic use is a smart long term strategy. The first incentive ISPs should have is to be able to provide a high level of service for bandwidth demanding applications. Over time these costs will drop as the bandwidth naturally expands because n…

> Here's the point: At some future point in time, torrent and video traffic will be negligible faction of the total amount of bandwidth available.

What will be taking the rest of the bandwidth? It certainly won't be idle or it won't get built out at all.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#67

Post by sausman »

phil21 wrote: post #64
sausman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my biggest qualm with building a company aimed to sell (either to public markets or another company). You are binding yourself to pursue as much profit as possible through whatever legal means possible. Even if those legal means go against everything you stand for, you have to pursue them because you have a fiduciary duty.

> Even if those legal means go against everything you stand for, you have to pursue them because you have a fiduciary duty. This is not true, and never has been even a little bit true (in the US). It's a commonly misquoted trope. Assuming your company happens to be public (the only way this matters) - you still can do whatever you like as controlling CEO short of outright fraud or negligence. If you decide to switch…

> You might lose your job though.

That's what I was trying to get at. I didn't mean to make it sound like you'd go to jail.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#68

Post by uw_rob »

fiatjaf wrote: post #19
RangerScience wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to downvote you because of how intensely I disagree with everything you're saying, but you're saying it nicely so I won't. Instead - The major concern about losing NN is that instead of just paying for volume of data, I'll also be required to pay based on type and/or source of that data, and that the entities providing the data will also be required to pay based on type and/or destination. Do you think this co…

Thank you for not downvoting me. Free market would be part of my answer if I had one. I'm not well-informed enough to say much, but imagine you have a local link in a small rural town that only support some absolute number of packets or whatever: if you have one big consumer that is eating the major part of that every day, making the others miserable, isn't it reasonable to limit that consumer's bandwidth somehow? Th…

> you have one big consumer that is eating the major part of that every day, making the others miserable, isn't it reasonable to limit that consumer's bandwidth somehow?

NN doesn't force ISPs to not have bandwidth caps on consumers. They are free to do this. The fact that most ISPs in the world are able to provide unlimited bandwidth should provide you some hint on how cheap bandwidth is.

> I can see a world where you would have to pay a little more for Netflix and a little less for sshing to your VPS.

Unlike a restaurant, ISPs are in the delivery business. It should not matter what is being delivered.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#69

Post by RodericDay »

weberc2 wrote: post #26
RangerScience wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to downvote you because of how intensely I disagree with everything you're saying, but you're saying it nicely so I won't. Instead - The major concern about losing NN is that instead of just paying for volume of data, I'll also be required to pay based on type and/or source of that data, and that the entities providing the data will also be required to pay based on type and/or destination. Do you think this co…

I'm not opposed to NN, but your phrasing piqued my curiosity: Why is it bad that ISPs charge us based on type/source of data? Should grocery stores charge us by volume (mass?) of food instead of by type/source/etc? If aggregating costs is indeed more moral, why should it be enforced by law (as opposed to the food example)? Providing robust answers to these questions should strengthen the NN position.

I was just in Lima, Peru. This is what you see if you're on Facebook on someone's phone (I was tethering), and click a link that takes you outside of Facebook:

https://s22.postimg.org/lilkrmo4x/Screen_Shot_2017-06-21_at_...

What do you think your chances of competing against Facebook, or Facebook-based businesses, are, when clients see this before accessing your site?

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#70

Post by uw_rob »

weberc2 wrote: post #32
rhizome wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no basis for your contention that "internet" would be cheaper without NN.

Given that reduced upstream costs typically translate into reduced downstream costs, and that regulation typically increases downstream costs, I think the onus is on NN-proponents to prove why the reverse is true.

How would you respond to the fact that A lot of ISPs have local monopolies and they have 0 incentive to pass on any savings they materialize to customers? Also, many ISPs are also media companies, and sabotaging internet based entertainment is beneficial to them?
Post reply on HN