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

91–100 of 178 posts

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

#91

Post by mrout »

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.

Grocery stores are directly selling things to you, and they cost different amounts based on their costs to the grocery stores, handling requirements, etc.

ISPs are like mail services: a letter is a letter is a letter. A package is a package is a package. And a packet is a packet is a packet.

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

#92

Post by zanny »

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.

Data caps or outright banning traffic to certain IP ranges does not necessarily reduce the costs for the ISP. For many ISPs, you are negotiating on bandwidth, not on total data rendered to the backbone, and you find your peak bandwidth needs are being generated when everyone is online and saturating their access between 7-10pm every night.

Bandwidth usage whales are just those that constantly use the bandwidth they paid for - which, outside of those peak traffic windows, isn't actually costing you anything to provide, because you aren't saturating your bandwidth anyway.

If ISPs want to cut costs, they rate limit customers (globally or during their peak usage times). That reduces the amount of routing hardware they need and the amount of backbone bandwidth they need to buy. If they institute data caps or try to break the Internets P2P architecture, they are just destroying the intent of the Internet while still having the same peak bandwidth rates they always did. Their routers just run cold now at night because nobody is using them for anything.

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

#93

Post by wmf »

dpark wrote: post #75
weberc2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> regulation typically increases downstream costs This is a common claim that is rarely supported with data. Why does enforcing net neutrality increase downstream costs? If you mean that it shifts costs (you pay more for Netflix because they have to pay Comcast for fair service), then sure. I don't see any evidence that net neutrality actually changes the underlying cost of net service, though. There's a great counte…

This isn't really a cost argument, but ISPs are currently double-billing for traffic, so presumably their revenue would go down under NN. Presumably under NN ISPs would raise prices to maintain profit margin.

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

#94

Post by dpark »

weberc2 wrote: post #85
dpark wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> regulation typically increases downstream costs This is a common claim that is rarely supported with data. Why does enforcing net neutrality increase downstream costs? If you mean that it shifts costs (you pay more for Netflix because they have to pay Comcast for fair service), then sure. I don't see any evidence that net neutrality actually changes the underlying cost of net service, though. There's a great counte…

I didn't posit that NN will increase costs; only that the onus for demonstrating otherwise lies with NN-proponents. I don't have data to support conventional wisdom; only that the conventional wisdom is reasonable given that compliance adds overhead.

Compliance with net neutrality doesn't actually add overhead. Neutrality is the default. Treating different traffic differently requires effort.

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

#95

Post by weberc2 »

RodericDay wrote: post #69
weberc2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Any viable competitor will necessarily have the resources to strike a similar deal. I think your argument boils down to "is unfair that Facebook has more resources than a competing startup", which is no truer without NN (in my mind, anyway).

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

#96

Post by dpark »

wmf wrote: post #93
dpark wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> regulation typically increases downstream costs This is a common claim that is rarely supported with data. Why does enforcing net neutrality increase downstream costs? If you mean that it shifts costs (you pay more for Netflix because they have to pay Comcast for fair service), then sure. I don't see any evidence that net neutrality actually changes the underlying cost of net service, though. There's a great counte…

This isn't really a cost argument, but ISPs are currently double-billing for traffic, so presumably their revenue would go down under NN. Presumably under NN ISPs would raise prices to maintain profit margin.

Sure. That double billing is just shifting costs, though. You end up paying for their double billing anyway.

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

#97

Post by weberc2 »

redial wrote: post #84
drdaeman wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahem. I think public roads sometimes have, e.g., limits for heavy vehicles or various dedicated lanes. ;) My actual point is, analogies just don't work.

Roads have the limits of the infrastructure and the law, not "limits" determined by the current operator of the road (that can be bypassed with payments, and thus not limits in the same sense). The grocery store analogy doesn't work. The road or electric grid analogies are perfectly apt.

The "because I say so" argument isn't very compelling. I probably agree with your conclusion, but the argument is lazy.

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

#98

Post by steego »

dpark wrote: post #66
steego wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a very good point and even better pointed question!

Part of the value of the network is how much bandwidth one can use in a month. The other part is simply the convenience of being able to send/receive lots of data in short bursts.

I'd argue most people don't need to consume lots of data to appreciate 1 Gb connection when it's available. I think you'll find most people are willing to pay a premium for convenience and optionality, even when they don't use it.

Now, if they're not using more total bandwidth, then your point stands. If the network is idle, it's more than likely not to get built out at all, but I'm not sure that rule applies to last mile networks.

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

#100

Post by fiatjaf »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #48
fiatjaf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But the person who makes the decision as to what ends up in the pipe (i.e. the end user, Netflix doesn't just spam people's routers) is the one who is already paying. Netflix isn't crowding anyone out (especially if they have a server within the ISP's perimeter), every bit of that bandwidth is requested by a user. Users crowding each other out is already handled by prioritizing based on how much they pay. Mass of foo…

Right. After reading yours and basically all other replies to my comment I understand that NN isn't supposed to prevent ISPs from limiting individual users' bandwidth or charging more per heavy usage.

In those terms I think I can support NN and take back my comments.

Post reply on HN