Defending the Open Internet
nytimes.com
Defending the Open Internet
1–10 of 45 posts
Re: Defending the Open Internet
#2Somewhat related, but I made a small site to help the average internet "user" understand what net neutrality is and why it's important: http://net-neutrality.io/
I'm not quite sure where to advertise it, does HN have any suggestions?
Re: Defending the Open Internet
#3Somewhat related, but I made a small site to help the average internet "user" understand what net neutrality is and why it's important: http://net-neutrality.io/ I'm not quite sure where to advertise it, does HN have any suggestions?
Forget the average user, can you explain in detail how you envision this to work and be administrated at a network level?
So I'm a packet, leaving my computer...what happens now and what laws govern me?
So for the NN supporters have been very high on rhetoric and appalling low on details, which is always a prescription for legislative disaster.
Re: Defending the Open Internet
#4Somewhat related, but I made a small site to help the average internet "user" understand what net neutrality is and why it's important: http://net-neutrality.io/ I'm not quite sure where to advertise it, does HN have any suggestions?
Hey Luke,
I'd recommend applying for http://taskforce.is and sending Sina an email(his contact details are available on the application form). Ask for access to our mailing list and shoot off a group message, we have a wide ranged of politically devout developers.
Re: Defending the Open Internet
#5The usual and expected hatchet job from a main stream media stalwart.
Neglecting the fact the fact digging up the ground to place cable, which is what the customer is actually paying for is entirely different from wiring up interconnects at core exchanges, which costs virtually nothing in comparison.
The customer pays the last mile provider to go fetch with the understanding that what they pay covers everything the provider is supposed to go fetch with some profit added on. Then the provider goes to stiff the content provider for a share of their income, or else throttles the content provider which is essentially robbing the customer of a service they've already paid for.
Why can't the NY Times put it this plainly and simply?
Re: Defending the Open Internet
#6Somewhat related, but I made a small site to help the average internet "user" understand what net neutrality is and why it's important: http://net-neutrality.io/ I'm not quite sure where to advertise it, does HN have any suggestions?
Forget the average user, can you explain in detail how you envision this to work and be administrated at a network level? So I'm a packet, leaving my computer...what happens now and what laws govern me? So for the NN supporters have been very high on rhetoric and appalling low on details, which is always a prescription for legislative disaster.
I will not permit considerations of market share, political affiliation, nationality, or social standing to interfere between my duty to send packages from A to B. - The ISP oath.
Neither political storms nor greed nor trickery nor monopolies stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed routes. - Internet Service creed
Re: Defending the Open Internet
#7Somewhat related, but I made a small site to help the average internet "user" understand what net neutrality is and why it's important: http://net-neutrality.io/ I'm not quite sure where to advertise it, does HN have any suggestions?
Forget the average user, can you explain in detail how you envision this to work and be administrated at a network level? So I'm a packet, leaving my computer...what happens now and what laws govern me? So for the NN supporters have been very high on rhetoric and appalling low on details, which is always a prescription for legislative disaster.
Accusing "NN supporters" of having nothing but hollow rhetoric is extremely disingenuous, and I find it hard to believe that even a casual reader of HN would not be able to find out more.
There is plenty of information and details out there supporting this idea, how it could and should be implemented, along with this being, as the article says, a "generally accepted norm" for a long time now.
Re: Defending the Open Internet
#8The usual and expected hatchet job from a main stream media stalwart. Neglecting the fact the fact digging up the ground to place cable, which is what the customer is actually paying for is entirely different from wiring up interconnects at core exchanges, which costs virtually nothing in comparison. The customer pays the last mile provider to go fetch with the understanding that what they pay covers everything the p…
Maybe they have visions of a NYTimes "news channel" added to your internet service that you pay for and receive whether you want it or not.
Greed or ignorance are generally my first guesses when trying to analyze what appears to be propaganda.
Re: Defending the Open Internet
#9The usual and expected hatchet job from a main stream media stalwart. Neglecting the fact the fact digging up the ground to place cable, which is what the customer is actually paying for is entirely different from wiring up interconnects at core exchanges, which costs virtually nothing in comparison. The customer pays the last mile provider to go fetch with the understanding that what they pay covers everything the p…
I don't think your average customer assumes anything about what their service payment covers. I bet most think it just covers the wire into their house. Would the perceived regulatory need go away if cable companies made clear: "we reserve the right to charge the sources of data you download, not withstanding the service charges for your connection."
I mean, its like Hulu Plus. The fact they charge a fee doesn't preclude them from charging advertisers to market to you.
Re: Defending the Open Internet
#10It annoys me that people invoke Chinese dissidents, MIT OpenCourseware, and Wikipedia in the context of an issue that, to date, only involves for-profit companies. I don't get how people can work up a moralistic fervor over a dispute between two giant highly profitable industries. Its not that I don't believe that the internet is a tool to deliver education to the underserved, or give voice to the politically marginalized, its that there is no indication that these aspects of the internet are at all threatened. Maybe I'm cynical, but I'm skeptical when these for-profit enterprises cloak themselves in internet utopianism to lobby for policies that have the primary or even sole effect of giving themselves a bigger slice of consumer entertainment dollars.
And if core values are threatened, why not have laws narrowly tailored to that danger? Why not just make it illegal for ISP's to discriminate against websites based on politics, race, etc? Surely that'd be easier to get passed, and people would be happy, if that's what this all was really about.