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

Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 136 posts

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#91

Post by convolvatron »

burkaman wrote: post #25
splintercell wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because the fear is that the internet will become like TV But I would rather take that than Internet becoming like TV, where govt can pass 'fairness doctrine' and other stuff, or restrict it significantly during war time. I'd rather trust economic incentives to keep Internet free than political incentives. If people are willing to pay for full coverage of the War, then even though govt is pressuring ISPs, it result…

What are the economic incentives to keep Internet free?

maybe real 'wealth creation' happens because of things like basic science, open engineering platforms, mathematics. soil in which myriad new things can grow.

nothing is created when someone hires some guards and puts up a tollbooth on an existing road.

so i guess i depends on which of these two scenarios you consider 'economic'

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#92

Post by MagnumOpus »

s73ver wrote: post #80

So question: Google, Facebook, Netflix, et al all say that Net Neutrality is extremely important to their business. Why are they not drowning legislators in lobbying and "campaign contributions" to make sure it stays? I mean, they have to be able to outspend the cable companies. And if the GOP position suddenly flip flops to be in favor of NN, it's not like any of their base will notice.

Google and Facebook don't really care - they are big enough to be in the fast lane or zero-rated no matter what, and their startup competitors being killed is good for them.

Netflix alone is just not big enough by itself to outspend the half-billion or so that the Media Big 6 and the Baby Bells spent on buying politicians, ads and spin.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#93

Post by MockObject »

syshum wrote: post #48
crispyambulance wrote: post #5

Net neutrality is dying because no one has been able to make a compelling case for it that can be understood by constituents, let alone politicians. There is one thing that just enough politicians do understand, however, and that's money. In their pockets. From ghouls who will profit handsomely when online access in the USA becomes effectively equivalent to shitty cable-tv service.

>Net neutrality is dying because no one has been able to make a compelling case for it that can be understood by constituents, I disagree, I think the case can be easily made but it is being drowned out by the ISP's and their supporters with a MASSIVE wave of disinformation, and false information. I have spent the majority of my time in discussions not attempting to explain why Title II is needed, but simply attempti…

> MASSIVE wave of disinformation

None of it has reached me. The only anti-NN arguments I see are from a small handful of anarcho-capitalist friends.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#94

Post by drewmol »

After FCC rule change[1], it seems the Telco mafia is also seizing control of available wireless spectrum which could be viable for alternate ISP service/media broadcast options. Although I do think there's more productive utilization of this frequency spectrum than broadcasting digital video signals, unfortunately it looks like the same oligopoly will soon control all the terrestrial broadcast licenses[2][3], essentially owning the whole spectrum. Then I'd suspect they'll lobby to repurpose all of them for authenticated (subscription-based) wireless IP/data use[4].

[1]http://fortune.com/2017/04/20/fcc-broadcast-tv-station-owner...

[2]https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/business/dealbook/tv-s...

[3]http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/comcast-nation/FCC-announ...

[4]http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/04/13/fccs-tv-airwa...

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#95

Post by trophycase »

cirgue wrote: post #50
hartator wrote: post #15

I don't see what this fuss is all about. If Facebook wants to offer cheaper Internet with their services prioritized, why not? Plus Internet is far from being neutral right now. Emails got deliver depending on your server IPs. CDNs already pay to be hosted by ISPs for a fast lane. Torrents don't reach the full capacity of your bandwidth. Etc. The case against government regulations for the Internet is easy to make: E…

> I don't see what this fuss is all about. If Facebook wants to offer cheaper Internet with their services prioritized, why not? Incumbency advantage and the arbitrary consolidation of economic power. The one clear duty of a government in regulating an economy is to ensure competition. We had the same fight about railroads, and we had the same fight about telecom in the thirties. The economic principles have not chan…

It's role is more to minimize externalities, of which ensuring competition is a part.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#96

Post by drewmol »

cr0sh wrote: post #90
uncletammy wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also expect new infrastructure to be the most likely solution. I wouldn't expect it to be 4G/5G mobile service though. I always thought that the next infrastructure would be a series of wireless mesh networks. They are extremely censorship resistant and can operate on unlicensed frequencies which makes them resistant to centralized control. I've heard about projects like https://nycmesh.net and http://guifi.net tha…

Mesh can work for short-haul. But long-haul routes are a problem. For instance, how would you mesh network between Los Angeles and Phoenix? Or Phoenix and Las Vegas? Those are "local" but long-haul routes for me. I can see the (slim) possibility of Phoenix to Tucson or Flagstaff. There is (almost) enough intervening users (potentially) to form the mesh (although it would be very bottlenecked). Mesh networks right now…

My understanding is that the "internet backbone" market is fairly competitive, as it's not too difficult/costly to install new infastructure across rural land areas if existing network operators are price gouging, etc. Do you think mesh networks combined with consumer hardware could be a viable option to bypass "last mile" ISP/Telco mafia infastructure?

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#97

Post by mreome »

richardknop wrote: post #71
fredley wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the fear is that the internet will become like TV: you can't buy access to 'TV', despite the fact there's no technical limitation. You have to buy packages, from different providers in order to get what you want. You have to sign up to hefty subscription packages with loads of bundled shite just to watch 7 hours of Game of Thrones. Currently you buy access to the internet, and that's all internet , at equal p…

You have to sign up to hefty subscription packages with loads of bundled shite just to watch 7 hours of Game of Thrones. You don't have to. Most people watch GoT for free either from torrents or from free streaming websites.

Which will not be available on your Non-Neutral Comcast/Verizon/Etc Internet Package.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#98

Post by mreome »

epmaybe wrote: post #66
fredley wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the fear is that the internet will become like TV: you can't buy access to 'TV', despite the fact there's no technical limitation. You have to buy packages, from different providers in order to get what you want. You have to sign up to hefty subscription packages with loads of bundled shite just to watch 7 hours of Game of Thrones. Currently you buy access to the internet, and that's all internet , at equal p…

Not discounting your argument, but HBO Now is cable-independent, so you can pay just for HBO and get Game of Thrones.

This is exactly the point. Unless they can FedEx episodes to you, your Comcast/Verizon/Etc internet package could exclude (or slow to unusable levels) such cable-independent services, unless you pay for the Super-Premium internet package that includes them.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#99

Post by e40 »

rrmm wrote: post #20
e40 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just another example of pulling the ladder up behind you, once you reach safety. Happens in many domains (immigrations, most famously).

But they haven't reached safety. They will be censored into oblivion by large corps who don't want to be seen endorsing/promoting that content, and any rival services they set up to fill those gaps will wither on the vine. There will be strange bedfellows to be had in this particular fight.

They in this case are the Trump people that got to the top. Yes, once they are out of power they are screwed. That's just myopic short-term thinking, though.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#100

Post by mreome »

cmahler7 wrote: post #31

Wouldn't getting rid of net neutrality actually be good for startups and smaller companies? People are effectively subsidizing the internet giants right now, if telecoms charged extra for them people would move on to different services? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's odd to see people banding together to defend Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc. Although the companies on the other side are obviously scum as wel…

How often do you see an old TV station replaced by a new one with better offerings? How often with websites? A Non-neutral internet has the potential to make the current big-players on the internet as locked-in as the TV networks.

New offerings would not be able to afford to pay for the fast-lanes used by the established companies, and would thus not be able to compete with them. Supporting net-neutrality is not defending Google, Amazon, Netflix, it's defending the sites that might some day replace them.

Post reply on HN