Keep the Internet Open(blog.samaltman.com)
blog.samaltman.com
Keep the Internet Open
http://blog.samaltman.com/keep-the-internet-open
414 comments
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...
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...
Your links directly contradict you, and support my original point.
Note that I'm talking about money from companies (most to Republicans) not the individuals that work for them (most to Democrats).
Note that I'm talking about money from companies (most to Republicans) not the individuals that work for them (most to Democrats).
I disagree with the company/individual distinction premise but even if you ignore individual contributions it's fairly even. Doesn't seem like a distinctly partisan issue.
Would you also disagree with a company/labor union distinction?
> Would you also disagree with a company/labor union distinction?
Labor unions are corporations, and corporations will fight for the corporation's interests. Those interests may align with the interests of their shareholders, but they may not always.
Labor unions are corporations, and corporations will fight for the corporation's interests. Those interests may align with the interests of their shareholders, but they may not always.
NotreDev(2)
I don't think that's right. It will be a major shift of power from Google/Facebook/Amazon to the ISPs. Comcast could charge Google or Facebook extortionate prices to keep their websites fast. Theoretically there would be nothing stopping Comcast from completely blocking a website. Cable vs TV channel negotiations periodically end up with blackouts for the channels.
Google and Facebook now run networks larger than most major ISPs -- among the largest on the planet.
Demand for Youtube and FB are so high and ubiquitous that pretty much any ISP will immediately cave in.
Comcast is the most disliked company in the USA. Guess what happens when G runs a banner under each search or Youtube video mentioning that performance is bad because Comcast is blocking things, here's Brian Roberts's phone number?
Demand for Youtube and FB are so high and ubiquitous that pretty much any ISP will immediately cave in.
Comcast is the most disliked company in the USA. Guess what happens when G runs a banner under each search or Youtube video mentioning that performance is bad because Comcast is blocking things, here's Brian Roberts's phone number?
Comcast should instead slowdown ads served by those websites, not the websites themselves. Then their customers don't complain but hits the opponents in the pocket book.
Yet Google tried being a retail ISP, with Google Fiber, and gave up. They've also tried some WiFi things, and toyed with being a wireless telco. But Google backed away from being a carrier. The margins aren't that good and you actually have to service customers.
> Demand for Youtube and FB are so high and ubiquitous that pretty much any ISP will immediately cave in.
Unfortunately I don't think this is totally true, e.g. in many places in the USA (even large cities and tech hubs), consumers only have one ISP option fast enough to stream YouTube.
Unfortunately I don't think this is totally true, e.g. in many places in the USA (even large cities and tech hubs), consumers only have one ISP option fast enough to stream YouTube.
If only ISP didn't work that hard to create artificial monopolies in the most part of their net.
>Guess what happens when G runs a banner under each search or Youtube video mentioning that performance is bad because Comcast is blocking things, here's Brian Roberts's phone number?
Nothing because consumers typically have a choice of 1 or maybe 2 ISPs? You said it yourself, Comcast is already the most disliked company in the US - they'd have nothing to lose by blocking YouTube - or worse, making it so slow that Google begins to lose viewership.
Nothing because consumers typically have a choice of 1 or maybe 2 ISPs? You said it yourself, Comcast is already the most disliked company in the US - they'd have nothing to lose by blocking YouTube - or worse, making it so slow that Google begins to lose viewership.
Or default service that blocks VPN, tracks everything you're doing and uses it for their benefit; and if you don't like that you can pay extra to opt out.
It's really clear. Democrats: This is the customer's information. Republicans: This is the ISP's equipment, and therefore anything on it is fair game for the equipment owner to use however they want, deny service to whoever they want, for any reason they want.
So distilled down what you end up with is a classist system where privacy in infrastructure isn't a right, it's something you pay for: Rich people are better, they get more rights, because they can afford to buy those rights.
It's really clear. Democrats: This is the customer's information. Republicans: This is the ISP's equipment, and therefore anything on it is fair game for the equipment owner to use however they want, deny service to whoever they want, for any reason they want.
So distilled down what you end up with is a classist system where privacy in infrastructure isn't a right, it's something you pay for: Rich people are better, they get more rights, because they can afford to buy those rights.
That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with. Do you have some hard data that says things break down so clearly along party lines? I'd particularly like to see data about non-politicians, if it is available, since the way Congress votes on such things is not necessarily driven by the way their constituents view the issue (if they are even aware of it).
I don't know how constituents in either party view things, but it seems pretty clear how members of Congress view things.
There is a bill in Congress now to strip away the rules the FCC passed last year that prevent ISPs from selling your browsing history and other personal information without your permission.
In the House, here is the list of sponsors:
Rep. Flores, Bill [R-TX-17], Rep. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN-7], Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX-22], Rep. Lance, Leonard [R-NJ-7], Rep. Scalise, Steve [R-LA-1], Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5], Rep. Guthrie, Brett [R-KY-2], Rep. Kinzinger, Adam [R-IL-16], Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH-6], Rep. Long, Billy [R-MO-7], Rep. Brooks, Susan W. [R-IN-5], Rep. Walters, Mimi [R-CA-45], Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND-At Large], Rep. Collins, Chris [R-NY-27], Rep. Costello, Ryan A. [R-PA-6], Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12], Rep. Shimkus, John [R-IL-15].
In the Senate, here is the list of sponsors:
John Barrasso (R-WY.), Jeff Flake (R-AZ.), Roy Blunt (R-MO.), John Boozman (R-AR.), Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV.), Thad Cochran (R-MS), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dean Heller (R-NV), James Inhofe (R-OK), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), John Thune (R-SD), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Jerry Moran (R-KS).
Note that all 17 sponsoring Representatives and all 24 sponsoring Senators are Republican.
There is a bill in Congress now to strip away the rules the FCC passed last year that prevent ISPs from selling your browsing history and other personal information without your permission.
In the House, here is the list of sponsors:
Rep. Flores, Bill [R-TX-17], Rep. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN-7], Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX-22], Rep. Lance, Leonard [R-NJ-7], Rep. Scalise, Steve [R-LA-1], Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5], Rep. Guthrie, Brett [R-KY-2], Rep. Kinzinger, Adam [R-IL-16], Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH-6], Rep. Long, Billy [R-MO-7], Rep. Brooks, Susan W. [R-IN-5], Rep. Walters, Mimi [R-CA-45], Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND-At Large], Rep. Collins, Chris [R-NY-27], Rep. Costello, Ryan A. [R-PA-6], Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12], Rep. Shimkus, John [R-IL-15].
In the Senate, here is the list of sponsors:
John Barrasso (R-WY.), Jeff Flake (R-AZ.), Roy Blunt (R-MO.), John Boozman (R-AR.), Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV.), Thad Cochran (R-MS), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dean Heller (R-NV), James Inhofe (R-OK), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), John Thune (R-SD), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Jerry Moran (R-KS).
Note that all 17 sponsoring Representatives and all 24 sponsoring Senators are Republican.
Hm, maybe we should use those netprospex records to call the family members of these Congress people and see what they think about data protections...
> That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with. Do you have some hard data that says things break down so clearly along party lines?
They do on the FCC, for the whole time since net neutrality and internet privacy have become an issue. Congress is a little fuzzier but mostly along the same lines.
In the electorate it might be blurrier, but clearly the distribution of views of the relevant politicians shows that the people who cross lines on the above description and who prioritize the issue when it comes to voting aren't that numerous.
They do on the FCC, for the whole time since net neutrality and internet privacy have become an issue. Congress is a little fuzzier but mostly along the same lines.
In the electorate it might be blurrier, but clearly the distribution of views of the relevant politicians shows that the people who cross lines on the above description and who prioritize the issue when it comes to voting aren't that numerous.
"They do on the FCC"
Not sure what you mean by that, you mean the breakdown of Republicans vs Democrats at the FCC?
Not sure what you mean by that, you mean the breakdown of Republicans vs Democrats at the FCC?
Yes, the FCC Republicans have been consistently against Open Internet regulation, the Democrats consistently for it. And similar shsrp partisan divisions exist on a number of other internet-related issues.
I am referring to the statements and policies voted on and implemented by FCC regulators. Asking about non-politicians on the face of it seems pointless, my entire comment is about policy. And that is necessarily about the politics. The affiliation of plebians doesn't matter, what matters is the ideology of those with the power to enact the policy.
Ajit Pai opposes any sort of regulation that prescribes or proscribes specific activity under Title II, and Republicans in Congress likewise prefer ISP regulation under the far weaker rules in Title I, rather than Title II. And he opposes subsidies favored by the Connect America Fund in reducing the disparity in broadband performance between urban and rural areas, and also the Lifeline program which makes it more affordable. Last year Lifeline was expanded, and Pai becomes chairman and blocks it as one off his first acts. These are night and day differences. It's fairly binary.
It's forcing free market ponies on what is a deeply monopolistic and anti-competitive market. Anytime there's meaningful competition you see conglomeration or market exit. It's absolutely a philosophy of "if you can't afford access or performance, the free market says go F yourself, and we aren't going to regulate an alternative outcome to that".
Ajit Pai opposes any sort of regulation that prescribes or proscribes specific activity under Title II, and Republicans in Congress likewise prefer ISP regulation under the far weaker rules in Title I, rather than Title II. And he opposes subsidies favored by the Connect America Fund in reducing the disparity in broadband performance between urban and rural areas, and also the Lifeline program which makes it more affordable. Last year Lifeline was expanded, and Pai becomes chairman and blocks it as one off his first acts. These are night and day differences. It's fairly binary.
It's forcing free market ponies on what is a deeply monopolistic and anti-competitive market. Anytime there's meaningful competition you see conglomeration or market exit. It's absolutely a philosophy of "if you can't afford access or performance, the free market says go F yourself, and we aren't going to regulate an alternative outcome to that".
"Asking about non-politicians on the face of it seems pointless"
Except that the tone of your post implies:
Republicans="evil rich people" Democrats="good folks looking out for the average Joe"
I don't believe it is anywhere near that simple. It was not at all clear to me that your original post was referring to FCC regulators alone. It would have been better if that would have been explicitly stated at the outset.
Except that the tone of your post implies:
Republicans="evil rich people" Democrats="good folks looking out for the average Joe"
I don't believe it is anywhere near that simple. It was not at all clear to me that your original post was referring to FCC regulators alone. It would have been better if that would have been explicitly stated at the outset.
I said from the outset exactly what I meant to say, and subsequently offered a qualification for upon request.
Unequivocally today's Republicans are heavily weighted, not exclusive, toward classism. It is a good and proper thing that there are rich, middle, and poor. People are different, egalitarianism is P.C. nonsense, and the classes should be preserved. People aren't equal. Better people have more wealth, wealth gives them goods and services like privacy, and even better justice because they can afford better lawyers. There are very few true rights, in this neo-feudal ideology. That is what explains the policies, including that of the new FCC.
Evil? No. I don't believe in anything supernatural. And far be it from me to imply anything. I see this as objective fact. Tone isn't required.
This isn't the Republican party of the 1920's or even the 1950's where we had massive subsidies for certain kinds of public infrastructure associated with having a civil society: telephone service was subsidized, obviously roads heavily subsidized, and the postal service was subsidized in these rural areas. There was simply no other way to level the playing field. They, and Democrats, built massive amounts of infrastructure.
And like any aristocracy, Republican policies will favor established players. Netflix is now a player, and they are paying for better access. Now, this game only gets enhanced, which will act as a barrier to entry to future competitors. It's bad for free market folks, and it's bad for fair minded civil society folks, because it isn't either of those things. This is finders keepers, losers weepers. It's a party largely about classism.
And Democrats largely provide the veneer of opposition, but really that's specious. But like any crotchety old man with poor hearing, sometimes they get the message and we're not all just left eating cake.
Unequivocally today's Republicans are heavily weighted, not exclusive, toward classism. It is a good and proper thing that there are rich, middle, and poor. People are different, egalitarianism is P.C. nonsense, and the classes should be preserved. People aren't equal. Better people have more wealth, wealth gives them goods and services like privacy, and even better justice because they can afford better lawyers. There are very few true rights, in this neo-feudal ideology. That is what explains the policies, including that of the new FCC.
Evil? No. I don't believe in anything supernatural. And far be it from me to imply anything. I see this as objective fact. Tone isn't required.
This isn't the Republican party of the 1920's or even the 1950's where we had massive subsidies for certain kinds of public infrastructure associated with having a civil society: telephone service was subsidized, obviously roads heavily subsidized, and the postal service was subsidized in these rural areas. There was simply no other way to level the playing field. They, and Democrats, built massive amounts of infrastructure.
And like any aristocracy, Republican policies will favor established players. Netflix is now a player, and they are paying for better access. Now, this game only gets enhanced, which will act as a barrier to entry to future competitors. It's bad for free market folks, and it's bad for fair minded civil society folks, because it isn't either of those things. This is finders keepers, losers weepers. It's a party largely about classism.
And Democrats largely provide the veneer of opposition, but really that's specious. But like any crotchety old man with poor hearing, sometimes they get the message and we're not all just left eating cake.
> Unequivocally today's Republicans are heavily weighted, not exclusive, toward classism.
The problem is the Democrats do the same thing just on different issues.
Republicans are in the pocket of oil companies, ISPs, agribusiness and defense contractors. Democrats are in the pocket of Hollywood, lawyers, HMOs, public sector unions and, let's face it, tech companies. They're both in the pocket of Wall St.
The idea that one of them is overall worse rather than worse for a specific industry is belied by the fact that they each get ~50% of the votes.
The problem is sometimes, like with Network Neutrality, there are objectively worse and objectively better overall alternatives, but those alternatives line up across party lines. So when the Republicans get in they try to destroy network neutrality and when the Democrats get in they try to pass SOPA and negotiate the TPP.
The key is to recognize that candidates matter more than parties. Zoe Lofgren and Diane Feinstein are both California Democrats, but what a difference.
The problem is the Democrats do the same thing just on different issues.
Republicans are in the pocket of oil companies, ISPs, agribusiness and defense contractors. Democrats are in the pocket of Hollywood, lawyers, HMOs, public sector unions and, let's face it, tech companies. They're both in the pocket of Wall St.
The idea that one of them is overall worse rather than worse for a specific industry is belied by the fact that they each get ~50% of the votes.
The problem is sometimes, like with Network Neutrality, there are objectively worse and objectively better overall alternatives, but those alternatives line up across party lines. So when the Republicans get in they try to destroy network neutrality and when the Democrats get in they try to pass SOPA and negotiate the TPP.
The key is to recognize that candidates matter more than parties. Zoe Lofgren and Diane Feinstein are both California Democrats, but what a difference.
Found the Republican who's still in denial that his party is just a bunch of rich white dudes trying to get richer.
It's more nuanced than that. It's a variation on the Nixon southern strategy as described by Lee Atwater in 1981. There simply aren't enough plutocrats to win elections.
https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-inf...
If it weren't, they'd have halled in Steve King from Iowa into the House an expelled him for what he said over the weekend. People are Americans because of shared values, not this illiberal bloodline nonsense espoused by King and the ignorant redneck wing, or the inheritance and primogeniture wing. They smiled and said nothing over birtherism either, they took the wins.
If it weren't, they'd have halled in Steve King from Iowa into the House an expelled him for what he said over the weekend. People are Americans because of shared values, not this illiberal bloodline nonsense espoused by King and the ignorant redneck wing, or the inheritance and primogeniture wing. They smiled and said nothing over birtherism either, they took the wins.
It can be argued that the ISP's equipment is useless unless it runs data lines through state-owned land, therefore no, it doesn't get to do absolutely anything it wants with it.
The equipment that would be modifying the traffic would be in privately-owned exchanges or the ISP's datacenters. None of it would happen on the fiber crossing over (or running under) state owned land.
By that same logic, there should be no laws governing radio broadcasting, since the equipment that emits the photons is located in a private building, not in the public airspace through which the photons travel. Yet the FCC still exists.
The reason the FCC needs to regulate public airspace is because transmissions interfere with each other. If there was a magical way to have no possible way to hijack or interfere with entities' assigned frequencies, the FCC would not need to exist.[1]
By your logic, the FCC should regulate a conversation two people were having in person just by virtue of them being on public land. Yet the FCC does not. The FCC also does not regulate the signs on the sides of buildings, even though light is reflected from them to public airspace.
1. They also have been given the power to provide censorship of public spectrums as well because some idiots deemed swear words to be scary.
By your logic, the FCC should regulate a conversation two people were having in person just by virtue of them being on public land. Yet the FCC does not. The FCC also does not regulate the signs on the sides of buildings, even though light is reflected from them to public airspace.
1. They also have been given the power to provide censorship of public spectrums as well because some idiots deemed swear words to be scary.
> The reason the FCC needs to regulate public airspace is because transmissions interfere with each other.
It's the exact same situation with net neutrality. If an ISP decides to give traffic from some hosts higher priority than my traffic, then that other traffic is interfering with my communications in the exact same way as an antenna that transmits a 50 GW signal on nearly all frequencies.
> By your logic, the FCC should regulate a conversation two people were having in person just by virtue of them being on public land. Yet the FCC does not. The FCC also does not regulate the signs on the sides of buildings, even though light is reflected from them to public airspace.
It's not that the government must regulate everything that happens in the public sphere. The government should regulate things if it's for the good of everyone (or most everyone), and if those things happen in the public sphere, then it has legitimacy to do it.
So, to address your examples, the FCC should regulate that conversation if those people are so loud that no one else in the city can speak, and it should regulate a sign on the side of a building if it emits such intense light that things in its path catch fire.
It's the exact same situation with net neutrality. If an ISP decides to give traffic from some hosts higher priority than my traffic, then that other traffic is interfering with my communications in the exact same way as an antenna that transmits a 50 GW signal on nearly all frequencies.
> By your logic, the FCC should regulate a conversation two people were having in person just by virtue of them being on public land. Yet the FCC does not. The FCC also does not regulate the signs on the sides of buildings, even though light is reflected from them to public airspace.
It's not that the government must regulate everything that happens in the public sphere. The government should regulate things if it's for the good of everyone (or most everyone), and if those things happen in the public sphere, then it has legitimacy to do it.
So, to address your examples, the FCC should regulate that conversation if those people are so loud that no one else in the city can speak, and it should regulate a sign on the side of a building if it emits such intense light that things in its path catch fire.
>It's the exact same situation with net neutrality. If an ISP decides to give traffic from some hosts higher priority than my traffic, then that other traffic is interfering with my communications in the exact same way as an antenna that transmits a 50 GW signal on nearly all frequencies.
You're paying the ISP to carry your traffic under the conditions in your private agreement with them. When someone spews radio frequencies, you don't have a private agreement with them that permits them to do so. If radio frequency interference was opt-in only, the FCC wouldn't need to exist.
You're paying the ISP to carry your traffic under the conditions in your private agreement with them. When someone spews radio frequencies, you don't have a private agreement with them that permits them to do so. If radio frequency interference was opt-in only, the FCC wouldn't need to exist.
This is foolish. Google doesn't own the last mile into your house. They are beholden to ATT + Verizon, and, to a lesser extent, Comcast.
Due to the regulatory moat that the Carriers have built up over the years (including spectrum rights) it's at least a 10 year battle to loosen their stranglehold at all, and that becomes a fascinating war if indeed content can be prioritized. Such a battle would be not unlike battles of the past, but at a larger scale.
Do you remember what it was like to load apps onto phones before the iPhone broke the carrier app lock?
Due to the regulatory moat that the Carriers have built up over the years (including spectrum rights) it's at least a 10 year battle to loosen their stranglehold at all, and that becomes a fascinating war if indeed content can be prioritized. Such a battle would be not unlike battles of the past, but at a larger scale.
Do you remember what it was like to load apps onto phones before the iPhone broke the carrier app lock?
Just like with health care insurance, ISPs are an anti-competitive market. Both ISPs in my area have hard caps, crap service, and are widely disliked. Even within the city, there's a surprising lack of overlap where entire neighborhoods are only serviced by one of those companies.
"Google and Facebook now run networks larger than most major ISPs -- among the largest on the planet."
The size of those transit and/or internal networks is really not at issue here. In discussions about vertical integration and monopoly power, what matters is the last mile - of which they have almost zero.
The size of those transit and/or internal networks is really not at issue here. In discussions about vertical integration and monopoly power, what matters is the last mile - of which they have almost zero.
Demand for Youtube and FB are so high and ubiquitous that
pretty much any ISP will immediately cave in.
I utterly fucking loathe Comcast, and yet they get thousands of my dollars because of an unspoken of oligopoly among ISPs that has grown out of the tacit agreement to not enter in to each others fiefs.
Years ago I wrote: How My Hatred Of Comcast Drove Me To Buy Their Stock [1].
TLDR: I hedged the possibility of oligopolistic/monopolistic pricing practices of a company that I cannot avoid by assuming that such predatory pricing practices will benefit their stockholders.
Their standard rates in my area have doubled since I bought the stock. The stock price has tripled. I wish this experiment had ended differently, with me realizing that Comcast wasn't so bad after all, and selling the stock at cost.
1: https://medium.com/@nicklum/how-my-hatred-of-comcast-drove-m...
TLDR: I hedged the possibility of oligopolistic/monopolistic pricing practices of a company that I cannot avoid by assuming that such predatory pricing practices will benefit their stockholders.
Their standard rates in my area have doubled since I bought the stock. The stock price has tripled. I wish this experiment had ended differently, with me realizing that Comcast wasn't so bad after all, and selling the stock at cost.
1: https://medium.com/@nicklum/how-my-hatred-of-comcast-drove-m...
[deleted]
Does Sonic.net not provide service in Berkeley? Back when I lived in the Bay Area, I switched from Comcast purely because Sonic.net isn't an utterly loathsome company. Turns out with Sonic I didn't have to reboot my modem every other week either.
Sonic is my preferred ISP. No data caps, no snooping, solid customer support. They're just happy being a great ISP. However, outside of their fiber offering, they are hobbled by AT&T copper.
I've used Sonic many different times throughout SF and while their support guys have been great, any and all problems I've had were usually a result of the copper. And AT&T couldn't care less.
Currently I have 50Mbps FTTN service from Sonic and it's rock solid. It's never been down in the few years I've had it. It does, however, still use AT&T infrastructure. But this is the only time I've used Sonic over AT&T and been pretty happy with it.
I've used Sonic many different times throughout SF and while their support guys have been great, any and all problems I've had were usually a result of the copper. And AT&T couldn't care less.
Currently I have 50Mbps FTTN service from Sonic and it's rock solid. It's never been down in the few years I've had it. It does, however, still use AT&T infrastructure. But this is the only time I've used Sonic over AT&T and been pretty happy with it.
Sonic is reliant on AT&T boxes; the best I can get is dual copper, and given my distance from the box, my estimated speed is 6mbps.
Oh how I've pleaded with them to bring fiber here. I remember when they announced that Berkeley was on the shortlist about 5 years ago.
Oh how I've pleaded with them to bring fiber here. I remember when they announced that Berkeley was on the shortlist about 5 years ago.
[deleted]
sonic speeds in many parts of the bay area (even in SF) is not competitive with comcast. they are rolling out fiber in select neighborhoods and can't wait until they come to my part of town.
I had to switch from Sonic (to Comcast) for just that reason. I had a bonded DSL connection from Sonic that could just barely get 10Mbps. And the bonding really wasn't even worth it because one line was at 8 and the other at 2. And it was all due to the unmaintained copper coming from AT&T. I agree with their new strategy though - the only way to have any control over their service quality was to own their own fiber.
Now, I'm in Cincinnati and have excellent fiber service from Cincinnati Bell, so it's possible to have good quality from the incumbent carrier.
Now, I'm in Cincinnati and have excellent fiber service from Cincinnati Bell, so it's possible to have good quality from the incumbent carrier.
Perhaps if comcast were deliberately strangling youtube, sonic's speeds would be competitive with comcast's.
> Guess what happens when G runs a banner under each search or Youtube video mentioning that performance is bad because Comcast is blocking things, here's Brian Roberts's phone number?
The ISP filters the banner before it reaches the customer, and replaces it with their own message (or just advertising from someone who has paid the ISP.)
The ISP filters the banner before it reaches the customer, and replaces it with their own message (or just advertising from someone who has paid the ISP.)
This is not possible on an https connection and HSTS preloading prevents ISPs from downgrading secure connections.
In the near future: "To provide optimum security and privacy for your internet browsing, you must now install our Comcastic™ Special Magic Certificate®. Failure to install our certificate will result in browsing being restricted. If you don't like it, go to a competitor."
That's very possible. It's probably better you dont even say it publicly to avoid given them the idea. Only a few companies have to implement it for it to become a national problem.
That cat is already out of the bag. Companies already sell MitM services to companies that want to monitor and filter the web traffic of their employees.
I suspect there are already niche ISPs out there that cater to the content-blocking impulses of certain customers by doing deep-packet inspection and firewalling at the gateway.
I suspect there are already niche ISPs out there that cater to the content-blocking impulses of certain customers by doing deep-packet inspection and firewalling at the gateway.
I don't think they can break SSL in order to do that.
[deleted]
yet comcast has a virtual monopoly on last mile. which is the only part that matters. many towns only have comcast (or like dialup or something crazy slow). let's take an extreme example where comcast uses a blackout to get a better deal with youtube. customers don't have the option to switch to a different provider. even if they did have the choice, it's not as simple as just calling up a new provider to switch services, you have to wait to get activated, at the worst case a matter of days before someone can come out to install hardware.
I'd add Amazon in there by nature of Netflix as much as anything else.
> Comcast could charge Google or Facebook extortionate prices
They can pay. Start-ups, hobbyists, and non-profits can't.
They can pay. Start-ups, hobbyists, and non-profits can't.
There's some price that they couldn't pay. Comcast would try to find what price that is.
And once they found it, they'd charge exactly one cent less.
This whole chain is just parroting reddit comments without thinking it through. You act as though there is nothing that happens with market forces other that monopoly corruption. Let's start with the fact that by market cap, Google is 590B and Comcast is 177B, so simply buying ISPs is a real possibility. You also just out of hand dismiss any other possible outcomes. So, here some off the top of my head.
* Local municipalities own the last mile, making ISP competition have less of a natural monopoly.
* Cities add regulations that don't require universal coverage which results in more competition over profitable locations. Poor or underserved areas could be subsidized in other ways if that was the goal.
* ISPs charges a toll to all the big companies, which makes installing lines more profitable, which increases competition and results in faster more available networks overall.
Net neutrality might be the best option on the balance, but talking about the alternatives as though there isn't a whole wide world full of ISPs that have different regulatory structures and different incentives is just silly to me.
* Local municipalities own the last mile, making ISP competition have less of a natural monopoly.
* Cities add regulations that don't require universal coverage which results in more competition over profitable locations. Poor or underserved areas could be subsidized in other ways if that was the goal.
* ISPs charges a toll to all the big companies, which makes installing lines more profitable, which increases competition and results in faster more available networks overall.
Net neutrality might be the best option on the balance, but talking about the alternatives as though there isn't a whole wide world full of ISPs that have different regulatory structures and different incentives is just silly to me.
This whole chain is the opposite of reddit, because it's the one place where networking and comp sci professionals tend to gather.
And there is a whole world of working ISP models - which America specifically chooses to ignore and instead follows it's usual free market/competitive religion.
Your ISPs are playing your country like a fiddle. I have personally taken notes and look for firms making the same moves as them as it is an excellent signal of market weakness and, political backing and weak regulators.
I mean, your guys hid post codes in bids for territory during auctions, so that they wouldn't have to compete.
American ISPs are in the business of making money with the least amount of outlay. Buy telecom stock, because looking at the disarray even places like HN, is clear who is going to be winning.
By the by - google/tech firms- will never buy an ISP, they aren't interested in a single business in America which is not their core competency. Instead ~~they will let NN fall,~~ edit: it is in their interest to, collude/pay ISPs their price and use their deeper moats to purchase other firms or services at even better prices than they can afford now.
And there is a whole world of working ISP models - which America specifically chooses to ignore and instead follows it's usual free market/competitive religion.
Your ISPs are playing your country like a fiddle. I have personally taken notes and look for firms making the same moves as them as it is an excellent signal of market weakness and, political backing and weak regulators.
I mean, your guys hid post codes in bids for territory during auctions, so that they wouldn't have to compete.
American ISPs are in the business of making money with the least amount of outlay. Buy telecom stock, because looking at the disarray even places like HN, is clear who is going to be winning.
By the by - google/tech firms- will never buy an ISP, they aren't interested in a single business in America which is not their core competency. Instead ~~they will let NN fall,~~ edit: it is in their interest to, collude/pay ISPs their price and use their deeper moats to purchase other firms or services at even better prices than they can afford now.
There are more and more local municipalities that are doing just that, and finding that it makes their communities very attractive places to live and do business. Of course the big ISPs fight this by sponsoring legislation making it illegal for a municipality to own and operate a network.
> * Local municipalities own the last mile, making ISP competition have less of a natural monopoly.
> * Cities add regulations that don't require universal coverage which results in more competition over profitable locations. Poor or underserved areas could be subsidized in other ways if that was the goal.
The problem with these solutions isn't that they can't work, it's that they take time to implement. So first you have to do it, and then we can revisit network neutrality after you're done and there is actually vigorous competition. Doing it the other way around doesn't work, not least because it's all too easy to claim you're going to do something to create competition and then not actually do it well or at all.
> * ISPs charges a toll to all the big companies, which makes installing lines more profitable, which increases competition and results in faster more available networks overall.
That would never actually happen. It doesn't matter how profitable an ISP is, you haven't done anything to address the natural monopoly, which means that as soon as there is any real competition all the margins disappear. The second competitor knows that ahead of time and doesn't bother to make the investment, so the market remains a monopoly but now there are monopoly tolls.
> * Cities add regulations that don't require universal coverage which results in more competition over profitable locations. Poor or underserved areas could be subsidized in other ways if that was the goal.
The problem with these solutions isn't that they can't work, it's that they take time to implement. So first you have to do it, and then we can revisit network neutrality after you're done and there is actually vigorous competition. Doing it the other way around doesn't work, not least because it's all too easy to claim you're going to do something to create competition and then not actually do it well or at all.
> * ISPs charges a toll to all the big companies, which makes installing lines more profitable, which increases competition and results in faster more available networks overall.
That would never actually happen. It doesn't matter how profitable an ISP is, you haven't done anything to address the natural monopoly, which means that as soon as there is any real competition all the margins disappear. The second competitor knows that ahead of time and doesn't bother to make the investment, so the market remains a monopoly but now there are monopoly tolls.
I agree 100%.
Do you know of academic/scholarly articles or books on this topic?
Net neutrality strikes me as a topic with a lot more scope for disagreement on both goals and policy than the hardcore pro net-neutrality crowd admits. It's somehow taken as an article of faith that a non-market solution would be best, even as we're living in a time with more last-mile competition than ever before (due to wireless).
Further, I don't see the Internet as a "public good". RF spectrum is a public good; it exists in a purely physical sense, and can be used by anyone, any time, anywhere. Internet infrastructure takes massive capital investment over many years, as well as ongoing expensive maintenance, and there's no reason someone shouldn't earn a reasonable rate of return on that invested capital.
Do you know of academic/scholarly articles or books on this topic?
Net neutrality strikes me as a topic with a lot more scope for disagreement on both goals and policy than the hardcore pro net-neutrality crowd admits. It's somehow taken as an article of faith that a non-market solution would be best, even as we're living in a time with more last-mile competition than ever before (due to wireless).
Further, I don't see the Internet as a "public good". RF spectrum is a public good; it exists in a purely physical sense, and can be used by anyone, any time, anywhere. Internet infrastructure takes massive capital investment over many years, as well as ongoing expensive maintenance, and there's no reason someone shouldn't earn a reasonable rate of return on that invested capital.
" It's somehow taken as an article of faith that a non-market solution would be best,"
It's not taken as an article of faith: we have decades of evidence showing what private players do. It's always same stuff that hurts consumers. They get as much territory as possible. They ensure through cut-throat competition, consolidation, and lobbying that there's little competition. Then they keep speed, innovation, and customer service as low as they can with prices as high as the market will sustain. This goes back to MA Bell.
Then, some pro-consumer regulations and billions in broadband subsidies made things better for a time. They also started upping their speed in areas where utilities or Google deployed high speed. As in, they could do it whole time but all big players chose to gouge customers instead. Obviously, one scheme works and one doesnt.
It's not taken as an article of faith: we have decades of evidence showing what private players do. It's always same stuff that hurts consumers. They get as much territory as possible. They ensure through cut-throat competition, consolidation, and lobbying that there's little competition. Then they keep speed, innovation, and customer service as low as they can with prices as high as the market will sustain. This goes back to MA Bell.
Then, some pro-consumer regulations and billions in broadband subsidies made things better for a time. They also started upping their speed in areas where utilities or Google deployed high speed. As in, they could do it whole time but all big players chose to gouge customers instead. Obviously, one scheme works and one doesnt.
Agreed. I don't think it would be good for consumers, but it wouldn't be very good for Google if every youtube video people watch buffers slowly and flickers, meanwhile $ISP has created a competing website that runs fine. Nor would it be good for Facebook if $ISP replaces all advertisements on their page with $ISP's own ads. (Hmm, I guess HTTPS should be able to prevent this?)
meanwhile $ISP has created a competing website that runs fine.
It wouldn't be good for Google, but this seems as likely as an ISP beating SpaceX to the moon. It's hard enough to get an ISP to provide internet service most of the time.
It wouldn't be good for Google, but this seems as likely as an ISP beating SpaceX to the moon. It's hard enough to get an ISP to provide internet service most of the time.
Netflix is an easier example. I know that Comcast Xfinity, for example, already offers a bunch of video streaming on demand, and more if you buy their TV subscription in addition to internet. So they already have a partial competitor to Netflix and Hulu, with a big incentive to mess with connections to those companies so people will use theirs instead.
Telstra in Australia invests a phenomenal amount of money into "Stan" / this.
Just for the sake of the thought experiment: Could not also Google/Facebook/Amazon charge one "misbehaving" ISPs Money for serving requests from their networks? (Sure, some customers would use alternative services, but who would be happy to use yahoo/myspace/ebay and the like. Yet some other of the ISP's customers would change the sip.)
"Things have changed fast; Google hardly even had lobbyists back during the SOPA blackout.
"
Errr, the DC office had 100+ people at that point, so ....
(IE i'm not sure why you think that, and given it's completely wrong, i'm going to go with 'you just have no idea what you are talking about')
Errr, the DC office had 100+ people at that point, so ....
(IE i'm not sure why you think that, and given it's completely wrong, i'm going to go with 'you just have no idea what you are talking about')
It was the rhetoric at the time and it might even be somewhat true,
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00002200...
Depends on how you define lobbyist, i guess, but that's the set of external folks, not internal ones.
In any case, i was second person to start in the DC office (after the policy director), so i can assure you i know precisely how many people it had at working on government affairs/lobbying/etc at a given point in time :)
In any case, i was second person to start in the DC office (after the policy director), so i can assure you i know precisely how many people it had at working on government affairs/lobbying/etc at a given point in time :)
Thanks for pointing this out; fixed.
The notion that "Google hardly even had lobbyists back during the SOPA blackhout" is incorrect, at least in spirit. Google may have had less 'middle market' lobbying going on, but it is very well known that Eric Schmidt's relentless engagement in politics substantially predated SOPA.
> 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.
Trying to sway people who already agree with you with is a waste of time and money. Of course most of the money and lobbying effort goes towards convincing people on the 'other side'.
Trying to sway people who already agree with you with is a waste of time and money. Of course most of the money and lobbying effort goes towards convincing people on the 'other side'.
It's funny because Google has been trying to break free of ISPs with Google Fiber. Unfortunately huge capital costs and regulatory capture by ISPs effectively torpedoed expansion plans. Now the head of the FCC, a former General Consul for Verizon, is adamentaly opposed to net neutrality.
The best part is that it was all enabled by people who did not like politics and just enjoyed solving problems. Sometimes I wonder if focusing on technology is the technologist's equivalent of putting one's head in the sand.
Yup. Starting to think it's time for us to learn.
Indeed, to keep a monopoly on services, there are large tech companies that could benefit as long as the ISPs don't get overly greedy where large companies will pay their way to better access to consumers. Zero rating is effectively the easiest way to have a company do this. T-Mobile semi-popularized the concept as being a 'pro for consumers' (great marketing spin, John Legere). While, I will admit freely, that T-Mobiles implementation of zero rating is not the most aggressive form, and so far t-mobile's been transparent for how any company can become part of it, at least that is my understanding talking to those in the industry (its just an email: [email protected], and they are willing to work with you on it is my understanding). In the long run, this kind of thing becoming acceptable opens the doors to less than savory practices. Will t-mobile eventually turn this into a screw they can turn to get more money out of content providers? Who knows. Its not regulated, transparent, or an open process. IE. If you argument is using this to manage the network (by only allowing 720p video streams, for instance, when watching videos online), why would fair, transparent, open, and a reasonably determined cost not be part of that?
Zero rating as it gets implemented by comcast, for instance, is much more sinister.
Either way, they get to take us for a ride.
One thing I also find interesting:
The new FCC chairman is all about de-regulating. Yet, the one thing he is not advocating is de-regulating open access rules to public utility infrastructure, IE, as this wired article explains: https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju...
"The ‘open access’ term gets thrown around a lot as code for creating artificial competition among resellers of a monopoly service at government-controlled rates. There’s no better way to kill incentives for building out or upgrading new networks.
But ‘open access’ really means promoting easy, inexpensive and open access to publicly owned rights-of-way"
The FCC has the power to petition congress for the authority (and there are some legal experts who think the FCC already has the power to dictate this see here: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-50A1.pd... also see the Telecommunications Act of 1996).
I have seen NO movement toward increasing competition by stripping away unreasonable local regulations on rights of way access by Ajit Pai. He not once ever proposed this, and nor since taking FCC chain, made it an agenda item to do just this. This would increase competition astronomically if the right of way access situation was to be sorted out and streamlined, for open access and implementing firm open access rules (like 30 day auto approvals for projects if the objecting party does not respond before that).
Though one might say, upon reading the telecom act of 1996 and say "Hey! it was suppose to give the authority!" well, it had one important caveat
However, the 1996 Act permits utilities to deny access where there is insufficient capacity and for reasons of safety, reliability or generally applicable engineering purposes
This gets abused, frankly, and the appeals process is rather non-existant and fighting it is very drawn out (companies sue each other over this clause all the time).
If he wants real competition, this would go a long way in doing the right thing.
Zero rating as it gets implemented by comcast, for instance, is much more sinister.
Either way, they get to take us for a ride.
One thing I also find interesting:
The new FCC chairman is all about de-regulating. Yet, the one thing he is not advocating is de-regulating open access rules to public utility infrastructure, IE, as this wired article explains: https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju...
"The ‘open access’ term gets thrown around a lot as code for creating artificial competition among resellers of a monopoly service at government-controlled rates. There’s no better way to kill incentives for building out or upgrading new networks.
But ‘open access’ really means promoting easy, inexpensive and open access to publicly owned rights-of-way"
The FCC has the power to petition congress for the authority (and there are some legal experts who think the FCC already has the power to dictate this see here: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-50A1.pd... also see the Telecommunications Act of 1996).
I have seen NO movement toward increasing competition by stripping away unreasonable local regulations on rights of way access by Ajit Pai. He not once ever proposed this, and nor since taking FCC chain, made it an agenda item to do just this. This would increase competition astronomically if the right of way access situation was to be sorted out and streamlined, for open access and implementing firm open access rules (like 30 day auto approvals for projects if the objecting party does not respond before that).
Though one might say, upon reading the telecom act of 1996 and say "Hey! it was suppose to give the authority!" well, it had one important caveat
However, the 1996 Act permits utilities to deny access where there is insufficient capacity and for reasons of safety, reliability or generally applicable engineering purposes
This gets abused, frankly, and the appeals process is rather non-existant and fighting it is very drawn out (companies sue each other over this clause all the time).
If he wants real competition, this would go a long way in doing the right thing.
I knew he was into deregulating, which to me seems like a way to get new people/companies to enter the market if it works out.
> I have seen NO movement toward increasing competition by stripping away unreasonable local regulations on rights of way access by Ajit Pai. He not once ever proposed this, and nor since taking FCC chain, made it an agenda item to do just this.
Is that more of a local or FCC issue? I do agree he should do somthing to make it easier for people to create alternative ISPs instead of 2 to 3 choices per area like it is now.
> I have seen NO movement toward increasing competition by stripping away unreasonable local regulations on rights of way access by Ajit Pai. He not once ever proposed this, and nor since taking FCC chain, made it an agenda item to do just this.
Is that more of a local or FCC issue? I do agree he should do somthing to make it easier for people to create alternative ISPs instead of 2 to 3 choices per area like it is now.
To be clear, this is an FCC issue, in my opinion, since local and state authorities refuse to deal with it.
1) as previous stated, they may already have this authority per the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which may already give the FCC the power to dictate right of way access terms
2) If that isn't upheld as legal opinion by the courts, Ajit Pai could petition heavily congress in the name of competition and stripping out harmful local regulation that is stifling businesses from being able to compete. Congress could give the FCC this authority.
Yet, he agitates to make no such move. Its a republican controlled congress. This is a net win for de-regulation (since it simplifies this process into a standard, and done right, would make everything more efficient), its pro business AND consumer, since barrier to entry drops significantly.
Yet, the one thing that de-regulation could accomplish, and I feel relatively easily, he does NOT do.
I don't think he actually wants competition. He wants to let existing ISPs lock in their customers and regions. All the actual actions he's taken thus far, do just that.
the other thing he could do is declare ALL FCC franchise rules null and void. (for those unfamiliar, this gives a great run down of the current structure of FCC franchises around broadband https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-180A1.p...)
1) as previous stated, they may already have this authority per the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which may already give the FCC the power to dictate right of way access terms
2) If that isn't upheld as legal opinion by the courts, Ajit Pai could petition heavily congress in the name of competition and stripping out harmful local regulation that is stifling businesses from being able to compete. Congress could give the FCC this authority.
Yet, he agitates to make no such move. Its a republican controlled congress. This is a net win for de-regulation (since it simplifies this process into a standard, and done right, would make everything more efficient), its pro business AND consumer, since barrier to entry drops significantly.
Yet, the one thing that de-regulation could accomplish, and I feel relatively easily, he does NOT do.
I don't think he actually wants competition. He wants to let existing ISPs lock in their customers and regions. All the actual actions he's taken thus far, do just that.
the other thing he could do is declare ALL FCC franchise rules null and void. (for those unfamiliar, this gives a great run down of the current structure of FCC franchises around broadband https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-180A1.p...)
> 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.
The leaders of Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc are NOT Republicans. Most of them are pro-immigration, pro-abortion, and pro-gay marriage.
The leaders of Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc are NOT Republicans. Most of them are pro-immigration, pro-abortion, and pro-gay marriage.
Most of all, they are pro getting rich(er). They wouldn't be where they are today if that was not their top priority in life.
In fairness to some I believe the occasional stroke of luck does happen and people win fortune even if that was not the top priority in their lives.
True, I always wonder what it must be like to be those billionaires because I would have retired after my first 10 million.
I think that if you have the drive to get to that point, you have a mindset that's not going to be satisfied with quitting.
It's like the folks who work extremely hard at amateur sports. They're not going to be content with placing in the top 100. "Welp, I made the top 100. What a ride. Alright, I'm good. I'll keep cycling, but I'm not going to be training as hard anymore." They're looking at what they need to do to get into the top 50.
Why does Paul Graham do what he does? He didn't even need to start Y Combinator. After Y Combinator had a bunch of success, he could have retired then, too. He's still plugging away. I assume he gets fulfillment from winning in a competitive marketplace, because he could, at any point, say, "Wait, why am I bothering with this? I'm rich!"
The fact that he's still working is an indicator that for some people, work and business is just as fulfilling as, say, backpacking and weightlifting is for me.
It's like the folks who work extremely hard at amateur sports. They're not going to be content with placing in the top 100. "Welp, I made the top 100. What a ride. Alright, I'm good. I'll keep cycling, but I'm not going to be training as hard anymore." They're looking at what they need to do to get into the top 50.
Why does Paul Graham do what he does? He didn't even need to start Y Combinator. After Y Combinator had a bunch of success, he could have retired then, too. He's still plugging away. I assume he gets fulfillment from winning in a competitive marketplace, because he could, at any point, say, "Wait, why am I bothering with this? I'm rich!"
The fact that he's still working is an indicator that for some people, work and business is just as fulfilling as, say, backpacking and weightlifting is for me.
The parent comment didn't make the case that the CEOs of these companies are Republicans - they were referring to the beneficiaries of the lobbying.
xname2(2)
We see the consequences of a non-open Internet every day where we work in Uganda. It is common there for people to have "social bundles" that only work for Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, etc. Our users believe they have Internet access but don't understand why data from our app is not syncing when Facebook is working. It's a large barrier for us and adds a huge moat for the incumbents. We're considering more integration over WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger so we too can benefit from the cheaper data but that only locks us into those platforms and strengthens their position.
> We see the consequences of a non-open Internet every day where we work in Uganda. It is common there for people to have "social bundles" that only work for Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, etc.
This is an important perspective. Recommend sharing this insight with the article author to consider appending to their original article.
This is an important perspective. Recommend sharing this insight with the article author to consider appending to their original article.
This is eye opening and a perfectly plausible future for new startups in the us and europe.
This is a really good example of the pitfalls here. All the way down to the micro-level decision influences.
While I like the Internet being open, I don't like "net neutrality" extremism.
1) While I dislike monopoly carrier antics, I'm even more unhappy about the idea of government bureaucrats dictating network engineering standards to carriers and ISPs. If you build a network with caches/content servers close to users, and expensive backhaul back to your network core, you can offer essentially unlimited traffic to users hitting the cache, and still provide more limited access to other stuff. I'd prefer high bandwidth everywhere, but that isn't always an option. It should be a market decision, not a national government decision.
2) The real problems with lack of NN are due to lack of competition in the access provider market. Focus on fixing that. A lot of this is due to local governments requiring providers cover entire markets to cover any of a market -- if someone wants to build another WebPass or CondoInternet and only serve high-density developments, that's great! Trenching fiber to single family homes is marginal anyway, but if you have low take-up in a neighborhood it is even worse. If you are going to push for regulation, have it be regulation to empower actual competition in the network access market.
3) Zero-rating in emerging markets (e.g. FB in India) is really the only way for many lower income users to afford services at all -- particularly for video services.
1) While I dislike monopoly carrier antics, I'm even more unhappy about the idea of government bureaucrats dictating network engineering standards to carriers and ISPs. If you build a network with caches/content servers close to users, and expensive backhaul back to your network core, you can offer essentially unlimited traffic to users hitting the cache, and still provide more limited access to other stuff. I'd prefer high bandwidth everywhere, but that isn't always an option. It should be a market decision, not a national government decision.
2) The real problems with lack of NN are due to lack of competition in the access provider market. Focus on fixing that. A lot of this is due to local governments requiring providers cover entire markets to cover any of a market -- if someone wants to build another WebPass or CondoInternet and only serve high-density developments, that's great! Trenching fiber to single family homes is marginal anyway, but if you have low take-up in a neighborhood it is even worse. If you are going to push for regulation, have it be regulation to empower actual competition in the network access market.
3) Zero-rating in emerging markets (e.g. FB in India) is really the only way for many lower income users to afford services at all -- particularly for video services.
"It should be a market decision, not a national government decision."
Funny how you call other extremists. This is a pure ideological viewpoint that has proven to be wrong in how internet and telecommunications evolved. It was built on standards and it was built on national and international regulations. It's why you can take a phone used in Germany and use it in India.
"3) Zero-rating in emerging markets (e.g. FB in India) is really the only way for many lower income users to afford services at all -- particularly for video services."
What are you basing this on? Data is very cheap and cost has been decreasing rapidly the last years. If you can afford a device that can play internet video then you can afford the data. Having lived in Cambodia over a few years I have witnessed the extreme uptake in mobile phones in a developing country (a very poor one too). A GB of data is about one dollar. It's used by garment factory workers earning about $130/month. It's used by women selling their own produce at the market. We are seeing the same in Myanmar with mobile phones being used along nearly all income groups. It's really obnoxious to see Facebook and supporters making arguments of farmers earning a dollar a day when they try to introduce a closed network. Poor people got 99 problems and paying top dollars for watching a video online isn't one of them. Those who cannot afford data cannot afford a usable phone. If Facebook wants to help these people in India then there is a bunch of ways of doing so that doesn't lock people and countries into a walled garden from a tech giant.
Funny how you call other extremists. This is a pure ideological viewpoint that has proven to be wrong in how internet and telecommunications evolved. It was built on standards and it was built on national and international regulations. It's why you can take a phone used in Germany and use it in India.
"3) Zero-rating in emerging markets (e.g. FB in India) is really the only way for many lower income users to afford services at all -- particularly for video services."
What are you basing this on? Data is very cheap and cost has been decreasing rapidly the last years. If you can afford a device that can play internet video then you can afford the data. Having lived in Cambodia over a few years I have witnessed the extreme uptake in mobile phones in a developing country (a very poor one too). A GB of data is about one dollar. It's used by garment factory workers earning about $130/month. It's used by women selling their own produce at the market. We are seeing the same in Myanmar with mobile phones being used along nearly all income groups. It's really obnoxious to see Facebook and supporters making arguments of farmers earning a dollar a day when they try to introduce a closed network. Poor people got 99 problems and paying top dollars for watching a video online isn't one of them. Those who cannot afford data cannot afford a usable phone. If Facebook wants to help these people in India then there is a bunch of ways of doing so that doesn't lock people and countries into a walled garden from a tech giant.
If they don't like it, then they can use something else.
Why assume they are stupid and unable to make decisions for themselves?
Why assume they are stupid and unable to make decisions for themselves?
You are touching on an important point here. Let me give you a comparison for clarity in these markets. In Cambodia now there is an extreme increase of pesticides usage. In the market the sellers will spray toxic liquid on produce during the day to keep them looking fresh. Farmers buy and use products they really have no clue about what is. Don't get my wrong; I'm not saying they should be going organic - correct use of pesticides have advantages for farming. But it's a country with extreme corruption and in practice no laws and regulations for this. This is resulting in a lot of problems for people consuming vegetables that aren't healthy to consume. And other issues. The suppliers turn a blind eye to this because all they see it increased sales. Consumers, and the general public, have limited knowledge. That doesn't mean they are stupid, however education is very much lacking. Though it should be noted there are a lot of stupid people everywhere as well (just look at any newspaper comment section).
So regulations are important. Partly so because some markets are very difficult for an average consumers to gain full knowledge about. That's for example one of the reasons why we had a financial crisis some years back.
So regulations are important. Partly so because some markets are very difficult for an average consumers to gain full knowledge about. That's for example one of the reasons why we had a financial crisis some years back.
What was everyone in Cambodia eating before the food with the pesticides on it?
Dude
From this response I'm guessing you are communicating that you'd rather not consider what kinds of options the people of Cambodia are facing: pesticide-laced food or malnutrition/starvation.
I'm having issues with understanding your wild theories and questions.
First of all you seem to dismiss the problems I described. Perhaps you need to re-read what I wrote with a less subjective attitude. Second you seem for some strange reason think that there is a choice between "pesticide-laced food or malnutrition/starvation". That's a false narrative. Also don't get hung up on pesticides, it was just as an example of lack of education, lack of information, lack of laws, corruption, and other issues that results in a market where the consumer have not got enough information to make a reflective choice.
I don't want to continue down your strange little rabbit hole that doesn't reflect any realistic option or facts of how life is in Cambodia or other similar countries. Given your strange questions I don't think you actually know so much about life in these countries or the issue people face. Seems you rather have some ideological viewpoint that you want to define as a narrative. I can assure you that any solution is not as easy as you think. It's complex issues. So please don't come with any simplistic ideological based statements with questions that doesn't make any sense, and attack me as someone who doesn't want to communicate with you.
"What was everyone in Cambodia eating before the food with the pesticides on it?"
Seriously, what are you expecting from this kind of question? Does it provide any value? Does it provide any argument at all? What are you really expecting me to explain to you from this question?
Oh and btw: Cambodia was a educated country with a functional society until the 1960s. Then USA decided to drop US 540,000 tons of bombs on the country killing hundred of thousands people. This resulted in Pol Pot taking over who then pretty much killed everyone with an education and lots more.
First of all you seem to dismiss the problems I described. Perhaps you need to re-read what I wrote with a less subjective attitude. Second you seem for some strange reason think that there is a choice between "pesticide-laced food or malnutrition/starvation". That's a false narrative. Also don't get hung up on pesticides, it was just as an example of lack of education, lack of information, lack of laws, corruption, and other issues that results in a market where the consumer have not got enough information to make a reflective choice.
I don't want to continue down your strange little rabbit hole that doesn't reflect any realistic option or facts of how life is in Cambodia or other similar countries. Given your strange questions I don't think you actually know so much about life in these countries or the issue people face. Seems you rather have some ideological viewpoint that you want to define as a narrative. I can assure you that any solution is not as easy as you think. It's complex issues. So please don't come with any simplistic ideological based statements with questions that doesn't make any sense, and attack me as someone who doesn't want to communicate with you.
"What was everyone in Cambodia eating before the food with the pesticides on it?"
Seriously, what are you expecting from this kind of question? Does it provide any value? Does it provide any argument at all? What are you really expecting me to explain to you from this question?
Oh and btw: Cambodia was a educated country with a functional society until the 1960s. Then USA decided to drop US 540,000 tons of bombs on the country killing hundred of thousands people. This resulted in Pol Pot taking over who then pretty much killed everyone with an education and lots more.
> "net neutrality" extremism
So the NN side are the extremists. Not the side that wants to radically change the way the internet has worked for 40 years. Not the side that wants to upend the most innovative segment of the economy in favor of dinausour monoplies, radically reshaping the foundations of billions of dollars in investment and billions more in created wealth. Those guys are "conservative" right?
So the NN side are the extremists. Not the side that wants to radically change the way the internet has worked for 40 years. Not the side that wants to upend the most innovative segment of the economy in favor of dinausour monoplies, radically reshaping the foundations of billions of dollars in investment and billions more in created wealth. Those guys are "conservative" right?
I think you misunderstand - NN is new, the internet worked fine on its own prior to it.
NN is not a colloquial "neutrality" agreement, its a "lets force carriers to do things because we don't understand how it works".
I've worked on the carrier side, on the last mile side and on the consumer side and I'm not a fan of most of the proposed legislation. We need to prevent anticompetitive practices, but thats about it.
I've worked on the carrier side, on the last mile side and on the consumer side and I'm not a fan of most of the proposed legislation. We need to prevent anticompetitive practices, but thats about it.
I was a financial analyst, and I had the chance to cover the telecom sector.
I know how the market works, NN is not new, it is how the world worked.
Anti NN is new. It's hugely anti competitive and anti consumer.
If it gets close to getting passed, I'll be really happy for the segment. Wouldn't be happy being a consumer.
Edit: IMO, the American telecom industry is shafting its consumers regularly and has been underinvesting for years. (Investing in regulatory capture is a lot more), there's many other nations with significantly better networks and speeds, and it's a joke stock for the rest of the world to see the country which created the internet writing the book on how to not enjoy it.
I know how the market works, NN is not new, it is how the world worked.
Anti NN is new. It's hugely anti competitive and anti consumer.
If it gets close to getting passed, I'll be really happy for the segment. Wouldn't be happy being a consumer.
Edit: IMO, the American telecom industry is shafting its consumers regularly and has been underinvesting for years. (Investing in regulatory capture is a lot more), there's many other nations with significantly better networks and speeds, and it's a joke stock for the rest of the world to see the country which created the internet writing the book on how to not enjoy it.
Which Internet rule is it which states that we can all claim we have been any occupation that suits the discussion, and without any additional evidence to support such claims?
The assumption of honesty on HN. I really don't get anything out of this place, and afaik I'm not even contactable.
But yeah, if you don't believe me, feel free to look at a bunch of financial statements and lavish over as many models as you like. Check ARPU numbers or read up on the history of your own markets. In true finance fashion, do your diligence and reach your own conclusions.
It's a lot less morality based once you look at the numbers. It's just business.
But yeah, if you don't believe me, feel free to look at a bunch of financial statements and lavish over as many models as you like. Check ARPU numbers or read up on the history of your own markets. In true finance fashion, do your diligence and reach your own conclusions.
It's a lot less morality based once you look at the numbers. It's just business.
More non-points.
To summarize your statement: "I am correct because I have read the data. Since you have not read the data, you should go read the data, because then, and only then, will you see that I am correct. Until then, just accept that I am correct."
I still reject your claims because you have not provided any meaningful measure of support for them.
To summarize your statement: "I am correct because I have read the data. Since you have not read the data, you should go read the data, because then, and only then, will you see that I am correct. Until then, just accept that I am correct."
I still reject your claims because you have not provided any meaningful measure of support for them.
[deleted]
Feel free to reject them. You'll still only truly know when you see the data.
If I knew the world was round, and you kept saying it was flat - why would I have any reason to do more than let you know it wasn't so?
If I knew the world was round, and you kept saying it was flat - why would I have any reason to do more than let you know it wasn't so?
> Which Internet rule is it which states that we can all claim we have been any occupation that suits the discussion, and without any additional evidence to support such claims?
Translation: I don't really have good arguments against NN except for a couple one-liners I'm reading off some Free Market (tm) blog, so I'll attack who you are instead of what you're saying.
Translation: I don't really have good arguments against NN except for a couple one-liners I'm reading off some Free Market (tm) blog, so I'll attack who you are instead of what you're saying.
It seems notable that you consider an unverified attempt to be an expert as acceptable, but pointing out someone engaging in this behavior is not.
NN was never codified but it has always been the agreed upon practice. Except for a few exceptional breaches (like the netflix/comcast deal https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast-an...) it's just what carriers have always done. It's only now that they're getting greedy that they demand to be paid to deliver content to their customers.
I've worked in big ISPs, I know exactly how it works, and it's never to the benefit of the customers. Especially when there's zero competitive pressure.
Out of curiosity (by someone who doesn't know exactly how it works), is there no way for society to go completely off-grid with respect to ISPs, like power customers do with solar panels? Couldn't we then people build an inexpensive wireless black box server/partial cache nodes that everybody owns (stronger ones or bridges for rural users), and that communicate as a smart distributive network - physically detached from the existing GIG and ISPs?
Wireless doesn't scale. Municipal delivered internet is the feasible option, which Comcast has sought to prevent via regulations.
The state should file antitrust charges and use the fines to erect new infrastructure that any ISP can lease, restoring competition.
The state should file antitrust charges and use the fines to erect new infrastructure that any ISP can lease, restoring competition.
Here's a 'mostly wireless' open/neutral network that seems to be scaling: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guifi.net
Your characterizing of the net is disingenuous. The net never had the dollar or technical pressures it has today; television, streaming, large traffic, advertising dollars. Just because you don't see the regulatory problems doesn't mean they are not there; lawyers have been dealing with people and business for a very long time and you talk like they are a bunch of stupid noobs. Remember the Bell monopoly? They do as well as I, and you are wrong.
reasonable political ideologies can lead to "extreme" outcomes. (I consider an extreme outcome to be one that requires human nature to change, in order to be successful.)
Since I think bureaucrats are gonna bureaucrat, handing them power over anything is a terrible idea.
Are companies good? no, many of them are terrible.
But if enough people don't like a company, the company ceases to exist.
I've yet to see a similar mechanism work for changing something about a bureaucrat i don't like.
I.E. the same thing that causes you to distrust a company (human nature) plays out just the same with a government body. What is it about being a bureaucrat that fixes human nature?
Since I think bureaucrats are gonna bureaucrat, handing them power over anything is a terrible idea.
Are companies good? no, many of them are terrible.
But if enough people don't like a company, the company ceases to exist.
I've yet to see a similar mechanism work for changing something about a bureaucrat i don't like.
I.E. the same thing that causes you to distrust a company (human nature) plays out just the same with a government body. What is it about being a bureaucrat that fixes human nature?
Comcast is one of the most hated companies ever but they only keep getting bigger.
"Bureaucrats" are ultimately responsive to the politicians which are ultimately responsive to us, as we see with Trump now getting the power to reshape Obama's FCC policies. I'll tell you this, if they really go through with giving the web over to the ISPs for them to ruin with nickel and dime schemes voters will eventually force your new favorite bureaucrats to back down.
"Bureaucrats" are ultimately responsive to the politicians which are ultimately responsive to us, as we see with Trump now getting the power to reshape Obama's FCC policies. I'll tell you this, if they really go through with giving the web over to the ISPs for them to ruin with nickel and dime schemes voters will eventually force your new favorite bureaucrats to back down.
Comcast is now a massive company that offers a lot more than telecommunication services. A lot of people really like many things that Comcast owns.
While we've set up a complex representative government to try and hold the people in power to account, that is still much more rigid and manipulable than the fluidity of a highly-competitive commercial market.
We need to focus on making the markets run well organically, not trying to make things happen by fiat.
Net neutrality is arguably part of that, but it's not the only, or even the major, part of it. The biggest part is finding some way to allow open competitive access to the in-the-ground infrastructure that runs modern telecoms. Net neutrality is a band-aid to cover up the fact that most Americans are beholden to a single ISP for data services. In a functioning marketplace, it wouldn't be necessary, because if $ISP_Y slowed down $Site_X, $ISP_Y's users would, in theory, move to $ISP_Z.
In reality, most consumers would probably happily accept a plan that allowed universal access at 5mbps and "turbo access" to some sites in exchange for a lower monthly fee. I understand that makes some people unhappy, but that doesn't mean we should deprive people of the freedom to make that tradeoff if they wish to do so.
While we've set up a complex representative government to try and hold the people in power to account, that is still much more rigid and manipulable than the fluidity of a highly-competitive commercial market.
We need to focus on making the markets run well organically, not trying to make things happen by fiat.
Net neutrality is arguably part of that, but it's not the only, or even the major, part of it. The biggest part is finding some way to allow open competitive access to the in-the-ground infrastructure that runs modern telecoms. Net neutrality is a band-aid to cover up the fact that most Americans are beholden to a single ISP for data services. In a functioning marketplace, it wouldn't be necessary, because if $ISP_Y slowed down $Site_X, $ISP_Y's users would, in theory, move to $ISP_Z.
In reality, most consumers would probably happily accept a plan that allowed universal access at 5mbps and "turbo access" to some sites in exchange for a lower monthly fee. I understand that makes some people unhappy, but that doesn't mean we should deprive people of the freedom to make that tradeoff if they wish to do so.
Right, but Comcast doesn't imprison people for life and bomb other countries or throw you in jail for not paying for its services.
Also, bureaucrats are responsible to the organizations most influential to them. "The American People" can barely be motivated to vote in a presidential election, because they rightfully perceive that their votes don't matter, and a vote between two shitty options is a shitty vote.
So, businesses (like Comcast) can just earmark a few million dollars a year to keep buying whatever organization has the power to regulate them, and we (the people) can do nothing about it.
The reason I strongly dislike Net Neutrality is _because_ comcast is horrible and hated. It's reasonable to assume that as we speak, the comcast executive team is figuring out how to best wine and dine top FCC officials.
Because that's way cheaper than being a better company.
Also, bureaucrats are responsible to the organizations most influential to them. "The American People" can barely be motivated to vote in a presidential election, because they rightfully perceive that their votes don't matter, and a vote between two shitty options is a shitty vote.
So, businesses (like Comcast) can just earmark a few million dollars a year to keep buying whatever organization has the power to regulate them, and we (the people) can do nothing about it.
The reason I strongly dislike Net Neutrality is _because_ comcast is horrible and hated. It's reasonable to assume that as we speak, the comcast executive team is figuring out how to best wine and dine top FCC officials.
Because that's way cheaper than being a better company.
>So, businesses (like Comcast) can just earmark a few million dollars a year to keep buying whatever organization has the power to regulate them, and we (the people) can do nothing about it.
You are right that this is a big problem, however it is more an implementation flaw than a flaw of regulations. A more strict enforcement of information and financial transparency could address the bribery concerns.
There is another problem that is perpetual in the interaction of government and corporations, which is that the corporation lawyer has many times, 10x or 100x, the financial incentive to make the bureaucrat ineffective, than the bureaucrat himself has to be effective.
I would suggest a (difficult) solution that any governmental office or agency should have their success evaluated in terms of economic impact by something like a team of independent economists every year or two.
The agency's funding as well as staff compensation would then be derived from that, as a fixed percentage of the societal benefit. I have no idea of the exact numbers, but the point is to create the same motivational incentives as the corporations have.
One side is working for themselves and reap the significant benefits of their hard work. The other side is working for all of society and really should also reap the benefits of their hard work.
You are right that this is a big problem, however it is more an implementation flaw than a flaw of regulations. A more strict enforcement of information and financial transparency could address the bribery concerns.
There is another problem that is perpetual in the interaction of government and corporations, which is that the corporation lawyer has many times, 10x or 100x, the financial incentive to make the bureaucrat ineffective, than the bureaucrat himself has to be effective.
I would suggest a (difficult) solution that any governmental office or agency should have their success evaluated in terms of economic impact by something like a team of independent economists every year or two.
The agency's funding as well as staff compensation would then be derived from that, as a fixed percentage of the societal benefit. I have no idea of the exact numbers, but the point is to create the same motivational incentives as the corporations have.
One side is working for themselves and reap the significant benefits of their hard work. The other side is working for all of society and really should also reap the benefits of their hard work.
>But if enough people don't like a company, the company ceases to exist.
This is completely untrue. I'll give an analogy: If enough people don't like a tyrannical government, does the tyrannical government cease to exist? No, it has all the power to keep people in line and also to make life just bearable enough so people tolerate it. Any sign of uprising or resistance will be squished in infancy.
The only way is if the situation becomes so unbearable for the people that there is a massive uprising/revolution, and even then the people are not guaranteed victory. Furthermore, suppose the tyrant is overthrown, without the institutions of democracy in place it's more likely than not that there will just be another tyrant in his place.
This is the law of the jungle, and it is not the best way to run a society. That is why we have laws, and that is why we need regulations for our corporations.
Edit to clarify: On second reading the above may sound to some like hysteria but any entity that has monopoly on a very expensive but vital infrastructure in a completely free and unregulated market, has all the power over its "customers". Hence the tyrannical government analogy.
This is completely untrue. I'll give an analogy: If enough people don't like a tyrannical government, does the tyrannical government cease to exist? No, it has all the power to keep people in line and also to make life just bearable enough so people tolerate it. Any sign of uprising or resistance will be squished in infancy.
The only way is if the situation becomes so unbearable for the people that there is a massive uprising/revolution, and even then the people are not guaranteed victory. Furthermore, suppose the tyrant is overthrown, without the institutions of democracy in place it's more likely than not that there will just be another tyrant in his place.
This is the law of the jungle, and it is not the best way to run a society. That is why we have laws, and that is why we need regulations for our corporations.
Edit to clarify: On second reading the above may sound to some like hysteria but any entity that has monopoly on a very expensive but vital infrastructure in a completely free and unregulated market, has all the power over its "customers". Hence the tyrannical government analogy.
They have fewer resources and are easier to ignore.
The bureaucrats are easier to ignore?
If you violate some obscure statute, you can be fined. (At best.) If you don't pay the fine, the penalties can escalate until the local police or feds arrest you (at gunpoint, if you resist) and lock you in a box.
There's 180,000 pages in the federal register [0].
How is that "easy to ignore"?
I'll take "business that I can stop paying at any time" over "armed gunmen with the legal authority to arrest me" every time.
[0] https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/regulatory...
If you violate some obscure statute, you can be fined. (At best.) If you don't pay the fine, the penalties can escalate until the local police or feds arrest you (at gunpoint, if you resist) and lock you in a box.
There's 180,000 pages in the federal register [0].
How is that "easy to ignore"?
I'll take "business that I can stop paying at any time" over "armed gunmen with the legal authority to arrest me" every time.
[0] https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/regulatory...
I encourage you to ignore the IRS, then. Or, hey, even the FCC.
> you can offer essentially unlimited traffic to users hitting the cache, and still provide more limited access to other stuff. I'd prefer high bandwidth everywhere, but that isn't always an option.
If you are a small company trying to start an internet based business, I'm pretty sure you'd take "limited bandwidth for all" over "high bandwidth for the competition; limited bandwidth for me" anytime.
That is also the best way to ensure the 'lower bound' for bandwidth is kept as high as possible.
If you are a small company trying to start an internet based business, I'm pretty sure you'd take "limited bandwidth for all" over "high bandwidth for the competition; limited bandwidth for me" anytime.
That is also the best way to ensure the 'lower bound' for bandwidth is kept as high as possible.
What do you mean by extremism? I view net neutrality as the requirement to treat all bits equally regardless of source, which is kind of a binary one.
I think as long as we are talking about the hardware infrastructure, (2) is a fundamental problem that cannot be fixed by adding competition, because it shares some common features with utilities like water, electricity, etc (making me believe internet access ought to be treated more like a utility). Maybe a better solution is a national commitment to fund and build quality internet access infrastrcture for the entire country, then encourage competition among what flows over those wires. (Disclaimer: not an economist and do not have expertise on this subject.)
I think as long as we are talking about the hardware infrastructure, (2) is a fundamental problem that cannot be fixed by adding competition, because it shares some common features with utilities like water, electricity, etc (making me believe internet access ought to be treated more like a utility). Maybe a better solution is a national commitment to fund and build quality internet access infrastrcture for the entire country, then encourage competition among what flows over those wires. (Disclaimer: not an economist and do not have expertise on this subject.)
I don't think all support of NN is extremism; some of it is. (there is also extremist anti-NN, and less extreme anti-NN)
There are some interesting ways to increase competition, including: 1) New access methods (WISPs, etc.) 2) Letting providers pick types of customers (multi-tenant buildings, for instance) 3) Dropping universal coverage requirements at some level of granularity -- maybe a provider only serves new neighborhoods, or some smaller lot size neighborhoods, or richer neighborhoods more likely to buy service. 4) Shared trenching/pole access, possibly in the form of bulk-running infrastructure a few times per year? 5) Shared physical infrastructure in some areas -- maybe local or single-purpose utility owned, like fiber in the ground going to neighborhood locations with Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory colo for provider equipment, or optical cross-connects?)
There are some interesting ways to increase competition, including: 1) New access methods (WISPs, etc.) 2) Letting providers pick types of customers (multi-tenant buildings, for instance) 3) Dropping universal coverage requirements at some level of granularity -- maybe a provider only serves new neighborhoods, or some smaller lot size neighborhoods, or richer neighborhoods more likely to buy service. 4) Shared trenching/pole access, possibly in the form of bulk-running infrastructure a few times per year? 5) Shared physical infrastructure in some areas -- maybe local or single-purpose utility owned, like fiber in the ground going to neighborhood locations with Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory colo for provider equipment, or optical cross-connects?)
"What do you mean by extremism? I view net neutrality as the requirement to treat all bits equally regardless of source, which is kind of a binary one."
It should be possible for me to build some kind of public network, somewhere, for some purpose ... and dictate bits/traffic any way I see fit.
Now maybe I can't do that with CATV because common carrier.
And maybe I can't do that with public spectrum because public resources.
But there should be some way I can do that. Net neutrality extremism suggests that there should not be any way I can do that.
It should be possible for me to build some kind of public network, somewhere, for some purpose ... and dictate bits/traffic any way I see fit.
Now maybe I can't do that with CATV because common carrier.
And maybe I can't do that with public spectrum because public resources.
But there should be some way I can do that. Net neutrality extremism suggests that there should not be any way I can do that.
Sure, "some kind of public network", but then it can't be advertised as "Internet access" because at that point you're providing access to your public network, not access to the Internet as a whole.
The issue is ISPs, who by definition are supposed to provide Internet access. Throttling and filtering for profit are not compatible with the Internet as we know it.
The issue is ISPs, who by definition are supposed to provide Internet access. Throttling and filtering for profit are not compatible with the Internet as we know it.
"Sure, "some kind of public network", but then it can't be advertised as "Internet access""
No, I should have been more clear - I mean an Internet connected network that is open to the (paying, presumably) public.
Again, we know lots of ways you can't do that because of common carrier laws and public rights of way ... and even human decency ... but if I conjure the thing up out of thin air and there's nobody twisting your arm, I should be able to run that thing.
And then throttle your speeds to xyz.com in favor of abc.com.
Or whatever.
No, I should have been more clear - I mean an Internet connected network that is open to the (paying, presumably) public.
Again, we know lots of ways you can't do that because of common carrier laws and public rights of way ... and even human decency ... but if I conjure the thing up out of thin air and there's nobody twisting your arm, I should be able to run that thing.
And then throttle your speeds to xyz.com in favor of abc.com.
Or whatever.
> "Sure, "some kind of public network", but then it can't be advertised as "Internet access""
> No, I should have been more clear - I mean an Internet connected network that is open to the (paying, presumably) public.
Again, you couldn't advertise it as "internet access" because you're not giving people equal access to the internet.
> but if I conjure the thing up out of thin air and there's nobody twisting your arm, I should be able to run that thing.
The problem is if you're the only carrier in an area, or if the majority of carriers make this sort of decision. "You can just pick someone else" doesn't work if someone doesn't have another option.
> No, I should have been more clear - I mean an Internet connected network that is open to the (paying, presumably) public.
Again, you couldn't advertise it as "internet access" because you're not giving people equal access to the internet.
> but if I conjure the thing up out of thin air and there's nobody twisting your arm, I should be able to run that thing.
The problem is if you're the only carrier in an area, or if the majority of carriers make this sort of decision. "You can just pick someone else" doesn't work if someone doesn't have another option.
Do the net neutrality laws say anything about "Internet access"?
There shouldn't, unless you're wiling to be responsible for all the bits that pass through your network. So if one of your subscribers transfers some CP on your network, you need to automatically to go prison for life for that. Is that OK with you? Sounds good to me.
My default heuristic is "anytime someone uses "think of the children" as an argument for protection, they have chosen one of the slipperiest of slopes to stand upon."
I doubt I'm the only one.
I recommend picking a better argument than CP to defend net neutrality.
I doubt I'm the only one.
I recommend picking a better argument than CP to defend net neutrality.
How about any criminal activity of any kind? Do you plan to be held liable for spammers/scammers using your network? Why was your vetting process for new users so poor? Why are you controlling unsolicited SIP telephony traffic?
You either follow net neutrality or you can try and get along without common carrier protections.
You either follow net neutrality or you can try and get along without common carrier protections.
Exactly. You can't have it both ways: you want total control over the traffic on your network, you get total liability for it too. You want to be a blind carrier, immune from liability? You can't have any control over the content.
We figured this out with the telephone company many decades ago, and the principle hasn't changed.
We figured this out with the telephone company many decades ago, and the principle hasn't changed.
This particular set of options doesn't reflect the immunity in §230 of the CDA, which both immunizes intermediaries and authorizes them to remove content they find objectionable. (While that doesn't mean that intermediaries can't be required to be neutral by other legislation or regulations, the particular either/or principle you describe hasn't been the law in the U.S. for a couple of decades.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
47 USC §230(c)(1) provides that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" and then (c)(2) immediately says that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of [...] any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected [...]".
Edit: to be precise, the content immunity in §230 isn't a generic common-carrier immunity; if you read the introductory text, it's a very Internet-specific immunity for "interactive computer services" such as Internet services!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
47 USC §230(c)(1) provides that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" and then (c)(2) immediately says that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of [...] any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected [...]".
Edit: to be precise, the content immunity in §230 isn't a generic common-carrier immunity; if you read the introductory text, it's a very Internet-specific immunity for "interactive computer services" such as Internet services!
[deleted]
I do agree with you, but just like how there is a difference between building pipes for a water park and building pipes for a water utility, there needs to be a line.
I don't know the exact answer to where that line is, but I truly believe it needs to be much more strict than it is right now.
I don't know the exact answer to where that line is, but I truly believe it needs to be much more strict than it is right now.
> ...I'm even more unhappy about the idea of government bureaucrats dictating network engineering standards to carriers and ISPs.
Why? Government bureaucrats dictate aviation engineering standards to airplane manufacturers, automobile engineering standards to car manufacturers, radio engineering standards to electronics manufacturers, and so on. These are generally good things: they ensure that citizens can have a reasonable expectation of safety and that resources are shared fairly.
Even with better competition, the ISPs will still wield a tremendous amount of power - internet access is critical to modern, prosperous life, so demand will be quite inelastic regardless of what they do to consumers. Furthermore, lifting regulations that providers must service an entire market won't help the many consumers who are in single family homes. They'll be left to pay for the service of a monopoly (or a duopoly if they're lucky) who can now legally extort smaller content providers without the power and clout to negotiate better terms.
Why? Government bureaucrats dictate aviation engineering standards to airplane manufacturers, automobile engineering standards to car manufacturers, radio engineering standards to electronics manufacturers, and so on. These are generally good things: they ensure that citizens can have a reasonable expectation of safety and that resources are shared fairly.
Even with better competition, the ISPs will still wield a tremendous amount of power - internet access is critical to modern, prosperous life, so demand will be quite inelastic regardless of what they do to consumers. Furthermore, lifting regulations that providers must service an entire market won't help the many consumers who are in single family homes. They'll be left to pay for the service of a monopoly (or a duopoly if they're lucky) who can now legally extort smaller content providers without the power and clout to negotiate better terms.
Your examples are all safety (including public safety), or shared-resources (radio spectrum).
Fiber I lay in the ground isn't a shared resource, and no one's safety is impaired by prioritizing my on-network traffic over off-network traffic.
A more direct analogy is government regulation of something like how food tastes or how entertaining TV shows are.
There's some justification for regulating carriers who have an enforced monopoly in a region, but the problem is the monopolies are local government monopolies, and the regulation here would be national.
Fiber I lay in the ground isn't a shared resource, and no one's safety is impaired by prioritizing my on-network traffic over off-network traffic.
A more direct analogy is government regulation of something like how food tastes or how entertaining TV shows are.
There's some justification for regulating carriers who have an enforced monopoly in a region, but the problem is the monopolies are local government monopolies, and the regulation here would be national.
> Your examples are all safety (including public safety), or shared-resources (radio spectrum). Fiber I lay in the ground isn't a shared resource, and no one's safety is impaired by prioritizing my on-network traffic over off-network traffic.
That's true, sort of. The fiber you lay in the ground isn't a shared resource, but the internet as a whole IS. Mediating my access to it without reasonable alternatives removes my stake in a shared resource.
> A more direct analogy is government regulation of something like how food tastes or how entertaining TV shows are.
I'm trying to interpret this charitably, but I must admit that my initial reaction is "that's absolutely ridiculous". This strikes me as a lurid, sensationalist comparison designed to appeal to anger rather than logic. If I am missing an obvious logical connection then I'd love to hear it.
If anything, I think a worst-case breakdown of net neutrality falls closer to having my personal choices regulated than government intervention does. It's not hard to imagine an example scenario where it is only profitable for my home to be serviced by an ISP which has political beliefs antithetical to mine. In such a case it would be perfectly legal for them to charge exorbitant rates to access this content, effectively controlling what I consume.
> There's some justification for regulating carriers who have an enforced monopoly in a region, but the problem is the monopolies are local government monopolies, and the regulation here would be national.
I think you're making this statement because of regulation requiring that providers service an entire market? I can't imagine how else to interpret the statement that "monopolies are local government monopolies", given that most people have a choice of one (two, if they're lucky) of {comcast, time warner, AT&T}. Simply lifting this regulation doesn't necessarily solve the problem - admittedly I'm speaking from a position of ignorance, but it strikes me as likely that there are many consumers to whom it isn't immensely profitable to provide service.
That's true, sort of. The fiber you lay in the ground isn't a shared resource, but the internet as a whole IS. Mediating my access to it without reasonable alternatives removes my stake in a shared resource.
> A more direct analogy is government regulation of something like how food tastes or how entertaining TV shows are.
I'm trying to interpret this charitably, but I must admit that my initial reaction is "that's absolutely ridiculous". This strikes me as a lurid, sensationalist comparison designed to appeal to anger rather than logic. If I am missing an obvious logical connection then I'd love to hear it.
If anything, I think a worst-case breakdown of net neutrality falls closer to having my personal choices regulated than government intervention does. It's not hard to imagine an example scenario where it is only profitable for my home to be serviced by an ISP which has political beliefs antithetical to mine. In such a case it would be perfectly legal for them to charge exorbitant rates to access this content, effectively controlling what I consume.
> There's some justification for regulating carriers who have an enforced monopoly in a region, but the problem is the monopolies are local government monopolies, and the regulation here would be national.
I think you're making this statement because of regulation requiring that providers service an entire market? I can't imagine how else to interpret the statement that "monopolies are local government monopolies", given that most people have a choice of one (two, if they're lucky) of {comcast, time warner, AT&T}. Simply lifting this regulation doesn't necessarily solve the problem - admittedly I'm speaking from a position of ignorance, but it strikes me as likely that there are many consumers to whom it isn't immensely profitable to provide service.
> I'm trying to interpret this charitably
I couldn't easily think of a non-public-safety, non-shared resource regulation that exists. (because most of those things aren't regulated). If you can think of a better example, I'm fine with using that.
> local monopoly
Local monopolies are because local governments restrict who can trench or otherwise install in an area. I believe there are local/state/federal restrictions requiring universal access. If it weren't for these monopolies you'd at least have two crappy cable companies in a region vs. one, and there would be competition. (In my market, sometimes apartment complexes and others do monopoly agreements with one or the other of the local carriers -- Wave vs. Centurylink vs. Frontier (dying) vs. Comcast -- which is an issue too, but much more open to commercial pressure.)
There are some national policies which restrict the total number of providers in the US market, but mostly it is restrictions at the local level which keep individual locations from having multiple of those providers. There are some inherent natural monopoly aspects here -- trenching has costs, etc. -- but a lot of it is a consequence of government policies.
(I want there to be open access to high speed, inexpensive Internet (with as uniform speeds across sites as possible) in as many places as possible; my disagreement with extreme NN policies is that they both violate private property rights AND are not likely to produce the desired result.)
I couldn't easily think of a non-public-safety, non-shared resource regulation that exists. (because most of those things aren't regulated). If you can think of a better example, I'm fine with using that.
> local monopoly
Local monopolies are because local governments restrict who can trench or otherwise install in an area. I believe there are local/state/federal restrictions requiring universal access. If it weren't for these monopolies you'd at least have two crappy cable companies in a region vs. one, and there would be competition. (In my market, sometimes apartment complexes and others do monopoly agreements with one or the other of the local carriers -- Wave vs. Centurylink vs. Frontier (dying) vs. Comcast -- which is an issue too, but much more open to commercial pressure.)
There are some national policies which restrict the total number of providers in the US market, but mostly it is restrictions at the local level which keep individual locations from having multiple of those providers. There are some inherent natural monopoly aspects here -- trenching has costs, etc. -- but a lot of it is a consequence of government policies.
(I want there to be open access to high speed, inexpensive Internet (with as uniform speeds across sites as possible) in as many places as possible; my disagreement with extreme NN policies is that they both violate private property rights AND are not likely to produce the desired result.)
> If you can think of a better example, I'm fine with using that.
Comparisons between regulation of telephone service and internet service seem like the closest analog, and there are certainly examples of the former. Early telephone network providers were forced to peer by government regulation, for instance. An even more closely related example is the regulation that cell network providers may not charge extra fees for tethering; that's actually quite close to the net neutrality argument, where the cell network provider is being forced to act as a "dumb pipe" and accept traffic at the same cost regardless of the source (though admittedly they have metered usage billing, which I would be totally fine with from my ISP if that solves the problem). That we as a society accepted regulation in both of these cases is not a sufficient argument for why net neutrality is necessary, but it defeats the argument that such regulation is unprecedented.
I think we're in agreement about what we want, and the argument that net neutrality will fail to produce this is reasonable since we aren't currently in the goal state. My fear of anti net-neutrality legislation is based on the fact that what we have now, though not ideal, is acceptable, and it's quite plausible that things could become much worse rather than better unless this is addressed very, very thoughtfully. I'm open to the idea that net neutrality as it currently stands is unsustainable, but that needs to be paired with a clear explanation of how revoking it won't lead us to the nightmare scenario I've described above in which a small monopoly of providers serve as unelected gatekeepers. As I mentioned earlier, if the answer is metered billing where the high costs of the long tail are amortized by the low costs of popular content, then that seems perfectly appropriate. You also gave an example in a sibling comment about net neutrality only being waived when consumers had access to a certain number of providers.
Comparisons between regulation of telephone service and internet service seem like the closest analog, and there are certainly examples of the former. Early telephone network providers were forced to peer by government regulation, for instance. An even more closely related example is the regulation that cell network providers may not charge extra fees for tethering; that's actually quite close to the net neutrality argument, where the cell network provider is being forced to act as a "dumb pipe" and accept traffic at the same cost regardless of the source (though admittedly they have metered usage billing, which I would be totally fine with from my ISP if that solves the problem). That we as a society accepted regulation in both of these cases is not a sufficient argument for why net neutrality is necessary, but it defeats the argument that such regulation is unprecedented.
I think we're in agreement about what we want, and the argument that net neutrality will fail to produce this is reasonable since we aren't currently in the goal state. My fear of anti net-neutrality legislation is based on the fact that what we have now, though not ideal, is acceptable, and it's quite plausible that things could become much worse rather than better unless this is addressed very, very thoughtfully. I'm open to the idea that net neutrality as it currently stands is unsustainable, but that needs to be paired with a clear explanation of how revoking it won't lead us to the nightmare scenario I've described above in which a small monopoly of providers serve as unelected gatekeepers. As I mentioned earlier, if the answer is metered billing where the high costs of the long tail are amortized by the low costs of popular content, then that seems perfectly appropriate. You also gave an example in a sibling comment about net neutrality only being waived when consumers had access to a certain number of providers.
> Fiber I lay in the ground isn't a shared resource
I disagree, and you are trivializing serious issues that lead to this regulation.
There's a good reason there's a lot of regulation in this space: people don't like it when companies tear up their street (or yard or driveway) to install utilities, and complain to their local elected officials when it happens. Democracy really works at this scale. For every person that is willing to have their street torn up for a second (or 10th) time to install a competing ISP's infrastructure, there are 49 people that don't understand and will keep paying comcast, and 50 people that don't care at all, but they sure as hell care about backhoes and construction workers in their yard.
Honestly, the local officials preventing competing ISPs from operating aren't even wrong, even if you view it as short sighted to represent their constituencies accurately. It's monstrously inefficient and stupid to lay competing physical networks.
I disagree, and you are trivializing serious issues that lead to this regulation.
There's a good reason there's a lot of regulation in this space: people don't like it when companies tear up their street (or yard or driveway) to install utilities, and complain to their local elected officials when it happens. Democracy really works at this scale. For every person that is willing to have their street torn up for a second (or 10th) time to install a competing ISP's infrastructure, there are 49 people that don't understand and will keep paying comcast, and 50 people that don't care at all, but they sure as hell care about backhoes and construction workers in their yard.
Honestly, the local officials preventing competing ISPs from operating aren't even wrong, even if you view it as short sighted to represent their constituencies accurately. It's monstrously inefficient and stupid to lay competing physical networks.
Yeah, I do think more competition between providers would naturally solve a lot of these problems. There's to much politics involved, even for a company as big as Google. At&t for example suing in Louisville.
The FCC and states should do something to help foster more competition and lowing the barrier to entry.
http://www.recode.net/2016/2/26/11588286/google-fiber-swings...
The FCC and states should do something to help foster more competition and lowing the barrier to entry.
http://www.recode.net/2016/2/26/11588286/google-fiber-swings...
>Zero-rating in emerging markets (e.g. FB in India) is really the only way for many lower income users to afford services at all -- particularly for video services.
This is too insidious and must be killed
Firstly - google offers free, complete internet via wifi at train stations in India. This solves multiple problems at once and actually makes an impact. (No last mile issues, at a major node where millions of people interact every day)
Secondly - Zero rating as proposed in India, would allow for a small curated list, which of course would be done by Facebook.
As zero rating stood, it was used by college kids who wanted free Facebook. Not by Kanta Bhen, in the middle of no where trying to find medical advice.
Thirdly-importantly: Wikipedia is not the internet. Facebook is not the internet. Google is not the internet.
These are fundamentally sites on the internet, and while hugely important to the English speaking world, the real value is the place where these things were made possible. And that is the internet.
That is what India risks losing, at a time in its development when it's more prepared to make pong than it is to make candy crush.
Sure, theres huge English speaking populations in the cities.
But rural India speaks a whole menagerie of local languages, many of which don't share a common root language.
So removing the chance for people to actually see that open, flat network, connecting everyone around the world is a massive short sighted loss.
This is too insidious and must be killed
Firstly - google offers free, complete internet via wifi at train stations in India. This solves multiple problems at once and actually makes an impact. (No last mile issues, at a major node where millions of people interact every day)
Secondly - Zero rating as proposed in India, would allow for a small curated list, which of course would be done by Facebook.
As zero rating stood, it was used by college kids who wanted free Facebook. Not by Kanta Bhen, in the middle of no where trying to find medical advice.
Thirdly-importantly: Wikipedia is not the internet. Facebook is not the internet. Google is not the internet.
These are fundamentally sites on the internet, and while hugely important to the English speaking world, the real value is the place where these things were made possible. And that is the internet.
That is what India risks losing, at a time in its development when it's more prepared to make pong than it is to make candy crush.
Sure, theres huge English speaking populations in the cities.
But rural India speaks a whole menagerie of local languages, many of which don't share a common root language.
So removing the chance for people to actually see that open, flat network, connecting everyone around the world is a massive short sighted loss.
Your first point isn't traditionally included in net neutrality – that belief, and everything about bureaucrats dictating standards was created out of whole cloth by the ISP lobbying effort.
The core idea is only fairness: e.g. Comcast can't throttle or charge for connectivity based on your perceived ability to pay and their in-house service shouldn't get separate pricing.
Similarly, zero-rating isn't usually considered a network neutrality problem as long as the option is open to everyone at the same pricing. It becomes anticompetitive if e.g. you're quoted twice what Comcast charges the company they have an interest in.
The core idea is only fairness: e.g. Comcast can't throttle or charge for connectivity based on your perceived ability to pay and their in-house service shouldn't get separate pricing.
Similarly, zero-rating isn't usually considered a network neutrality problem as long as the option is open to everyone at the same pricing. It becomes anticompetitive if e.g. you're quoted twice what Comcast charges the company they have an interest in.
> Similarly, zero-rating isn't usually considered a network neutrality problem as long as the option is open to everyone at the same pricing.
That's still extremely anti-competitive. Incumbents are in an much better position to pay large sums of money to have relatively minor services stream for free. People will flock to those services and a small competitor will have no viable option of paying for the fees and remaining profitable.
You might counter that with "get funding!" But I think the internet is amazing because of it's low barrier to entry. Blocking that might not prevent "disruption" from startups, but it sure as hell will prevent many people from casually trying things.
That's still extremely anti-competitive. Incumbents are in an much better position to pay large sums of money to have relatively minor services stream for free. People will flock to those services and a small competitor will have no viable option of paying for the fees and remaining profitable.
You might counter that with "get funding!" But I think the internet is amazing because of it's low barrier to entry. Blocking that might not prevent "disruption" from startups, but it sure as hell will prevent many people from casually trying things.
I think the natural consequence of zero rating or other benefits for "big" providers is an expansion of CDNs and other intermediaries to let a collection of small sites benefit from the infrastructure investment of others, in addition to consolidation (such as content providers running YouTube channels vs. their own video infrastructure).
It's less competitive but I think “extremely anti-competitive” is an overstatement: it might mean that when you talk competition to Comcast, Verizon, etc. you're talking about companies on the scale of Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc. but those would be an option whereas without some sort of parity it'd be the choice between using your ISP's service or paying $200/month.
I do agree that there's a public-good aspect to supporting Internet access but I think that's an even greater change to the current market, at least where most users are on wireless.
I do agree that there's a public-good aspect to supporting Internet access but I think that's an even greater change to the current market, at least where most users are on wireless.
The first point is exactly what Comcast can do with their own video service that they can't do with a random video service. (They can do it with someone like Netflix with open content servers.)
If NN were structured such that a company like Netflix had to provide content servers for internal-to-network deployment or netflix customers would higher rate or lower performance for Netflix traffic, but Comcast had to charge the same rate and same standards for Netflix, Comcast's own video product, or any other third party to do this, I'd support it.
I don't particularly value the ability of a carrier to engage in bundling/commercial exploitation of the monopoly, but I do want providers free to engage in technical innovation to provide multiple 4K streams and gigabit access to customers at $50/mo, etc.
This is an even bigger deal when you start looking at other network technologies (wireless/cellular, some of the WISPs, etc.) than fiber to the home or HFC.
If NN were structured such that a company like Netflix had to provide content servers for internal-to-network deployment or netflix customers would higher rate or lower performance for Netflix traffic, but Comcast had to charge the same rate and same standards for Netflix, Comcast's own video product, or any other third party to do this, I'd support it.
I don't particularly value the ability of a carrier to engage in bundling/commercial exploitation of the monopoly, but I do want providers free to engage in technical innovation to provide multiple 4K streams and gigabit access to customers at $50/mo, etc.
This is an even bigger deal when you start looking at other network technologies (wireless/cellular, some of the WISPs, etc.) than fiber to the home or HFC.
I found the wording in your second sentence a bit confusing but I think that simply goes back to the fair/open aspects: let Comcast put VOD servers in every neighborhood in the country, but require them to allow Netflix, Google, etc. to purchase rack-space at cost so they have the option of parity.
Yes -- if they are a regulated monopoly, that is the best way to allow some bits to be "premium". I think CDNs would likely also put servers in those places, so smaller sites would have the ability to use them as well.
Competition > Regulated Monopoly > Unregulated Monopoly. (A duopoly which decides not to compete isn't really competition.)
Competition > Regulated Monopoly > Unregulated Monopoly. (A duopoly which decides not to compete isn't really competition.)
Some CDNs already do but this would at least make that more open and less of a back-room deal, too, so someone like Fastly doesn't suffer because the Akamai negotiator was in the same frat as the Comcast person they're negotiating with.
I think the regulated monopoly model makes the most sense for the last mile connection: make it like what we had with DSL where anyone can rent the wire and competition happens at the service level. I wouldn't mind Verizon offering a ton of bundled services over FIOS if I could simply buy only internet from someone else.
I think the regulated monopoly model makes the most sense for the last mile connection: make it like what we had with DSL where anyone can rent the wire and competition happens at the service level. I wouldn't mind Verizon offering a ton of bundled services over FIOS if I could simply buy only internet from someone else.
The downside of removing competitive pressure on the physical last mile is it removes the incentive to invest in building it.
Fiber to the Home is an extremely marginal economic proposition today. It's not deployed today. Without strong economic drivers for it, it won't get built.
I'd accept that once FTTH exists (bringing fiber back to a neighborhood point), that might be good enough to not require more competition at that level (as long as maintenance can be done.) I'd in principle be fine with any solution to get that built -- a regulated monopoly, direct government buildout, whatever.
Fiber to the Home is an extremely marginal economic proposition today. It's not deployed today. Without strong economic drivers for it, it won't get built.
I'd accept that once FTTH exists (bringing fiber back to a neighborhood point), that might be good enough to not require more competition at that level (as long as maintenance can be done.) I'd in principle be fine with any solution to get that built -- a regulated monopoly, direct government buildout, whatever.
Regulated monopolies are profitable, just capped to prevent abuse, and I'd be surprised if there was trouble finding investors for a guaranteed return even if it's not as big as it could be.
Also, not sure you've looked at FTTH recently enough: Verizon alone has 32 million customers according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_in_the...
Also, not sure you've looked at FTTH recently enough: Verizon alone has 32 million customers according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_in_the...
>It should be a market decision, not a national government decision.
That's all well and good where competitive markets exist, but in many places, they simply don't.
Only 23% of American census blocks, for example, have more than 1 option for 25MBPS+ internet.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br...
That's all well and good where competitive markets exist, but in many places, they simply don't.
Only 23% of American census blocks, for example, have more than 1 option for 25MBPS+ internet.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br...
Maybe the solution is to use exemption from NN as a carrot to encourage competition. "If there are two (or 3? or 4?) or more separate providers offering parity level of service to a property, all providers to that property are exempt from NN requirements for service to that property". If you combined that with allowing new entrant providers to not cover an entire geographic market, but just cherry pick the high density/high profit segments, you might get both broad NN and competition.
They are just gonna create "children" companies, make a pseudo cartel with them, and charge whatever they want in the area. US antitrust law are a joke and totally useless. If you want to do something like that you should first _strongly_ improve your anti-trust legislation and really start breaking big companies (yes, also those bahamut banks) and put them in a real competitive position.
That is a very great idea.
In general, it solves the problem that underlies it all: unregulated private monopolies become anticompetitive.
If you force private monopolies to be fair, or end their monopoly, you have a nice solution.
In general, it solves the problem that underlies it all: unregulated private monopolies become anticompetitive.
If you force private monopolies to be fair, or end their monopoly, you have a nice solution.
> The real problems with lack of NN are due to lack of competition in the access provider market. Focus on fixing that.
Easier said than done. As with utilities like power, water, or gas, it's not exactly that easy to get multiple companies running infrastructure to every home.
And to be clear, all of Americas Internet provider problems stem from the last mile monopolies, not the core infrastructure.
I agree there is a lot of detrimental regulatory overhead, but I disagree that it is the primary hurdle.
Last mile infastructure is not fluid. If the customer doesn't buy, it can't be sold to someone else and the builder is stuck with the bill. It's just too expensive to build and maintain for investors to want to enter in saturated markets.
Actually, this is why I feel wireless networks need less regulation than wired ones. Radio spectrum is fluid and normal market marchanics are more at play.
Easier said than done. As with utilities like power, water, or gas, it's not exactly that easy to get multiple companies running infrastructure to every home.
And to be clear, all of Americas Internet provider problems stem from the last mile monopolies, not the core infrastructure.
I agree there is a lot of detrimental regulatory overhead, but I disagree that it is the primary hurdle.
Last mile infastructure is not fluid. If the customer doesn't buy, it can't be sold to someone else and the builder is stuck with the bill. It's just too expensive to build and maintain for investors to want to enter in saturated markets.
Actually, this is why I feel wireless networks need less regulation than wired ones. Radio spectrum is fluid and normal market marchanics are more at play.
Zero rating in India was never a move that helped anyone in India afford services, it was just designed to get them into a locked network that had access to nothing but Facebook. And it was very clear that India had no patience for that sort of thing with the way it went down.
This is not the argument you make against net neutrality.
This is not the argument you make against net neutrality.
Yet another person who views "the market" as the end all be all decision maker. Learn to think beyond money, the universe is much bigger than a pile of paper
1. Till an extent. Free markets are not always in the interest of consumers.
3. Terrible idea. No one wants FB to be the gatekeeper. And no its not the only way. Many state govts (especially Telangana) are rolling out programs to provide data access to poor people. Telangana in particular is laying out the fiber optic network statewide wherever the ground is being dug up for more critical infrastructure projects like water and gas.
Your point stand only when the markets are ideal and utopian. Unfortunately it can only happen when the companies are not beholden to shareholder interests.
3. Terrible idea. No one wants FB to be the gatekeeper. And no its not the only way. Many state govts (especially Telangana) are rolling out programs to provide data access to poor people. Telangana in particular is laying out the fiber optic network statewide wherever the ground is being dug up for more critical infrastructure projects like water and gas.
Your point stand only when the markets are ideal and utopian. Unfortunately it can only happen when the companies are not beholden to shareholder interests.
> the idea of government bureaucrats dictating network engineering standards to carriers and ISPs
I have to admit I read that and I completely discount the rest of your comment. Nobody who actually believes in even the concept of sensible government regulation uses phrasing like this. I'm surprised you didn't call out "three letter agencies" too.
And besides that I believe you're just trying to fool people too stupid to know what NN is when you say net neutrality "dictates network engineering standards". I don't think your comment is intellectually honest at all.
I have to admit I read that and I completely discount the rest of your comment. Nobody who actually believes in even the concept of sensible government regulation uses phrasing like this. I'm surprised you didn't call out "three letter agencies" too.
And besides that I believe you're just trying to fool people too stupid to know what NN is when you say net neutrality "dictates network engineering standards". I don't think your comment is intellectually honest at all.
Ah, a member of the mythical "coastal liberal ideological vacuum," where anyone who brings up the slightest anti-government sentiment gets bombarded with ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies, instead of facts and reason. Is that because the coastal liberal is uneducated, or simply immature?
If we generously assume the latter, it's important for you to know that the sort of thinking that let Trump win the white house is echoed in your entire comment. Congratulations!
I've got to run, but in the meantime, perhaps you can educate yourself on some of the potential shortcomings associated with regulating the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Reduction_in_in...
Edit: Oh look! Downvotes for observations. What an amazing display of irony.
If we generously assume the latter, it's important for you to know that the sort of thinking that let Trump win the white house is echoed in your entire comment. Congratulations!
I've got to run, but in the meantime, perhaps you can educate yourself on some of the potential shortcomings associated with regulating the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Reduction_in_in...
Edit: Oh look! Downvotes for observations. What an amazing display of irony.
I'm with you. I still feel a bit surprised at the cognitive dissonance required to support internet privacy (on one hand) and on the other, recommend having a government body regulate _the entire internet_.
I wonder if this breakdown is at least in part between populations in the USA and everyone else.
I've sat down with some pro-nn folks, honestly trying to understand how they reconcile the two, and have not made much progress.
I wonder if this breakdown is at least in part between populations in the USA and everyone else.
I've sat down with some pro-nn folks, honestly trying to understand how they reconcile the two, and have not made much progress.
I do not understand why there is cognitive dissonance here? NN gives users power. Privacy gives users power. There is no dissonance in wanting both of these things that have the same end.
Are you suggesting that all government regulation is a violation of user privacy? (If so, I would suggest you share a different definition of privacy to most people)
Are you suggesting that all government regulation is a violation of user privacy? (If so, I would suggest you share a different definition of privacy to most people)
> I still feel a bit surprised at the cognitive dissonance required to support internet privacy (on one hand) and on the other, recommend having a government body regulate _the entire internet_.
Supporters of Open Internet regulation do not want the government "regulating the entire internet".
Supporters of Open Internet regulation do not want the government "regulating the entire internet".
The government can say "all ships using a federally funded port must follow these docking procedures" without knowing what's in the ships, no?
Does the solve the cognitive dissonance issue for you?
Does the solve the cognitive dissonance issue for you?
The utility should be the fiber (or spectrum). Regulate that; leave the ISPs to then compete openly.
Today's software can enable multiple ISPs to share the fiber/spectrum. I could then have 10 ISPs today and 15 ISPs tomorrow. I might use ISP #1 for certain content, and ISP #2 for certain services.
ISPs essentially become a function of the services and content they provide, and how they provide it, in an ultra-competitive, granular market. The way it should be.
Today's software can enable multiple ISPs to share the fiber/spectrum. I could then have 10 ISPs today and 15 ISPs tomorrow. I might use ISP #1 for certain content, and ISP #2 for certain services.
ISPs essentially become a function of the services and content they provide, and how they provide it, in an ultra-competitive, granular market. The way it should be.
Good point. I believe Sweden is quite close to this vision.
More generally, certain goods need to be owned by the community, such as infrastructure. Privately owned streets are a nightmare, and so are pipes and fibers. Almost by definition this must lead to malfunctioning markets. Only if a level playing field on this ground is guaranteed, a market on top if this can function efficiently.
More generally, certain goods need to be owned by the community, such as infrastructure. Privately owned streets are a nightmare, and so are pipes and fibers. Almost by definition this must lead to malfunctioning markets. Only if a level playing field on this ground is guaranteed, a market on top if this can function efficiently.
Isn't that what happened to the DSL market? No one will bother laying new infrastructure because anyone can use it.
You can always make the government take care of what is becoming increasingly fundamental infrastructure.
But then you'll be called a communist.
But then you'll be called a communist.
And rightfully so, since taking care of it would mean the Ministry of Communications has deemed the current available bandwidth sufficient for serving the government's approved content (propaganda), thus eliminating the need for improved infrastructure. People should be in the fields growing food for their comrades anyways, not sitting on the internet.
How are the Ministries of Firefighting, of Police and of Roads going?
Good point but much larger overall pie with fiber; enough for the infrastructure owner and the ISPs to eat, and eat well.
Also the OSS/BSS/ops implementations for shared DSL were too costly and ineffective; we can do much better with today's software.
Also the OSS/BSS/ops implementations for shared DSL were too costly and ineffective; we can do much better with today's software.
Yes, this is/was the situation in Germany. Which basically results in Telekom being the only provider building new infrastructure while every other (DSL)-provider just rents those lines. Of course it should be shared, but it lacks incentive to actually improve the reach of infrastructure.
I always had the idea of timed exclusivity - whoever builts infrastructure first should enjoy 2-4 years of exclusive operation before other providers can join.
I always had the idea of timed exclusivity - whoever builts infrastructure first should enjoy 2-4 years of exclusive operation before other providers can join.
This is a great model and is done in a number of countries eg UK. I know NZ too the govt created the environment for a single utility to build last mile fiber and then ISPs compete on the that connection.
This is a difficult question. Emotionally, I am a net neutrality absolutist, but I think I can talk myself out of it, which to me means that the conversation is complex.
Should the power company be able to offer you a discounted rate if you host equipment that offsets their cost (for instance: a powerwall)[1]?
I think that the answer to that question is yes.
Well okay, then should your ISP be able to offer you a discounted rate to use services that offset their cost (youtube, which has an cache near you, vs vimeo, which doesn't)? If the power company can do this, then why can't the ISP?
Again, I don't like this, but I can't think of a consistent explanation for why they shouldn't be allowed to dynamically charge you based on their cost.
[1]: I don't know enough about the electrical grid to know if a powerwall could actually be used in a way that offsets the cost to a power utility or not. I don't think that the correctness of this statement matters to the example. Substitute "a powerwall" for "equipment that saves the power company money".
Should the power company be able to offer you a discounted rate if you host equipment that offsets their cost (for instance: a powerwall)[1]?
I think that the answer to that question is yes.
Well okay, then should your ISP be able to offer you a discounted rate to use services that offset their cost (youtube, which has an cache near you, vs vimeo, which doesn't)? If the power company can do this, then why can't the ISP?
Again, I don't like this, but I can't think of a consistent explanation for why they shouldn't be allowed to dynamically charge you based on their cost.
[1]: I don't know enough about the electrical grid to know if a powerwall could actually be used in a way that offsets the cost to a power utility or not. I don't think that the correctness of this statement matters to the example. Substitute "a powerwall" for "equipment that saves the power company money".
I think a closer analogy would be: Should the power company be able to offer you a discount based on the brand of appliance you use. e.g. If you had a GE fridge in your house should you get a discount on your power usage (all other things being equal). So if you have a GE fridge you pay $0.10 per kilowatt, but a Samsung fridge will cost you $0.15
From my perspective, along the last mile a bit is a bit. The fact that they may have some back-bone infrastructure that optimizes delivery of traffic to an edge-node for youtube or Facebook doesn't really apply to me (e.g. it is not something I control). The fact that e.g. Comcast and Facebook can do a deal that monopolizes in their favor vs. other social networks/ISPs is not exactly to my benefit. I can't control that deal like I can control adding "a powerwall" in my house.
From my perspective, along the last mile a bit is a bit. The fact that they may have some back-bone infrastructure that optimizes delivery of traffic to an edge-node for youtube or Facebook doesn't really apply to me (e.g. it is not something I control). The fact that e.g. Comcast and Facebook can do a deal that monopolizes in their favor vs. other social networks/ISPs is not exactly to my benefit. I can't control that deal like I can control adding "a powerwall" in my house.
I really want the electricity analogy to be good, but the reality is that it isn't.
A bit is not a bit. Some bits actually are cheaper to deliver than others.
A bit is not a bit. Some bits actually are cheaper to deliver than others.
The major ISPs don't pay much for transit though. E.g. Comcast is is not tier 1, but with their peering arrangements they pay for less than 1 percent of their traffic.
The notorious Comcast/Netflix case was certainly not motivated by transit costs, since Netflix offers video content free to any ISP - see https://openconnect.netflix.com/
The notorious Comcast/Netflix case was certainly not motivated by transit costs, since Netflix offers video content free to any ISP - see https://openconnect.netflix.com/
How so?
Because net neutrality already doesn't exist for ISPs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_transit
Also, because of things like edge caches, there are bits that have to travel a shorter distance, and interact with less hardware, than other bits.
Your GE microwave doesn't require that it gets electricity from a GE power turbine. All watts are the same in that sense. The watts can come from a GE generator (in the town over) or a westinghouse generator (in the local town). It doesn't matter.
But a youtube application does require that the bits come from youtube servers. Youtube cannot use bits from vimeo, and because of network topology, the vimeo bits might be more costly for the ISP to deliver than the youtube bits.
Also, because of things like edge caches, there are bits that have to travel a shorter distance, and interact with less hardware, than other bits.
Your GE microwave doesn't require that it gets electricity from a GE power turbine. All watts are the same in that sense. The watts can come from a GE generator (in the town over) or a westinghouse generator (in the local town). It doesn't matter.
But a youtube application does require that the bits come from youtube servers. Youtube cannot use bits from vimeo, and because of network topology, the vimeo bits might be more costly for the ISP to deliver than the youtube bits.
Exactly. Think of the analogy with car brands on a street (looking at you, Tesla) and you have most peoples understanding.
Scalia gives this example in a 2005 minority opinion.[1]
If a Powerwall saves the utility money, then any discount flowing from that is just returning money to the customer. My watching a video on Facebook instead of YouTube does nothing like that.[2]
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/net-n...
[2] As an aside, neither do Powerwalls. Utilities sell commodities, so any savings must be realizable as reduced usage. E.g. if solar were cheaper but for storage, utilities could buy storage themselves.
If a Powerwall saves the utility money, then any discount flowing from that is just returning money to the customer. My watching a video on Facebook instead of YouTube does nothing like that.[2]
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/net-n...
[2] As an aside, neither do Powerwalls. Utilities sell commodities, so any savings must be realizable as reduced usage. E.g. if solar were cheaper but for storage, utilities could buy storage themselves.
In a way, I'd say what your describing as far as power utilities is already in effect. There are a good number of people that charge their batteries off peak when the power is cheaper such that they can either use it later on peak when they would have to pay more, or even sell that power back to the grid when it's in more demand.
I think the issue here is that power is binary as far as the argument here is concerned, you have it or you don't, but influencing consumer patterns on data usage has the potential to seriously influence how they use the internet in a way that paying differing amounts for power doesn't. Competition is one of the most powerful driving forces of the internet today. The idea a lone programmer can offer a service that compares to multinational companies (in some areas, obviously not others) is phenomenal. But say consumers or that developer suddenly have to pay a large ongoing entry cost due to the fact that the product that they have made and are competing with is high bandwidth. Innovation dies overnight without net neutrality.
I think the issue here is that power is binary as far as the argument here is concerned, you have it or you don't, but influencing consumer patterns on data usage has the potential to seriously influence how they use the internet in a way that paying differing amounts for power doesn't. Competition is one of the most powerful driving forces of the internet today. The idea a lone programmer can offer a service that compares to multinational companies (in some areas, obviously not others) is phenomenal. But say consumers or that developer suddenly have to pay a large ongoing entry cost due to the fact that the product that they have made and are competing with is high bandwidth. Innovation dies overnight without net neutrality.
> power is binary as far as the argument here is concerned, you have it or you don't
Power is not binary. It is fundamentally analog. You can certainly have different degrees of power. See brownouts. Consumers only tend to see power as binary because of deep standards penetration in the electronics market.
Power is not binary. It is fundamentally analog. You can certainly have different degrees of power. See brownouts. Consumers only tend to see power as binary because of deep standards penetration in the electronics market.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly understand that power is anything but binary in it's function, however, as far as how consumers interact with it, very very few care as to what the copper in their walls is doing, only that it turns on the lights.
To extend the argument of net neutrality in this direction, I think an important distinction needs to be made, because surely you could argue LED's over florescent bulbs due to power consumption, but consumers already pay for different speeds and data caps, the argument shifts to your utility offering different prices based on who is making your LED's, even if they are functionally identical. This is where the comparison breaks down, because the bulbs don't magically become more efficient for your utility because they are somehow peering with the manufacturer.
To extend the argument of net neutrality in this direction, I think an important distinction needs to be made, because surely you could argue LED's over florescent bulbs due to power consumption, but consumers already pay for different speeds and data caps, the argument shifts to your utility offering different prices based on who is making your LED's, even if they are functionally identical. This is where the comparison breaks down, because the bulbs don't magically become more efficient for your utility because they are somehow peering with the manufacturer.
> as far as how consumers interact with it
Right. Because of deep penetration of market standards, a mix of government regulation and industry standards, consumers interact with power in this very limited fashion.
I don't believe users of bandwidth would want to behave in a similar fashion. Is it so crazy to imagine a dynamic bandwidth market, largely automated for pay per use? I worry about the impacts of such a thing, but it like any other has its benefits and plagues.
/To be honest, I have no idea what you mean by your extended metaphor...
Right. Because of deep penetration of market standards, a mix of government regulation and industry standards, consumers interact with power in this very limited fashion.
I don't believe users of bandwidth would want to behave in a similar fashion. Is it so crazy to imagine a dynamic bandwidth market, largely automated for pay per use? I worry about the impacts of such a thing, but it like any other has its benefits and plagues.
/To be honest, I have no idea what you mean by your extended metaphor...
The comparison to the power company is natural because the hardware infrastructure is similar, but the crucial difference is that power lines don't carry communications (for the most part). Energy is more easily made into a commodity because it can be quantified in natural physical units. For communications it's much harder. The definition of "services" like YouTube will be necessarily incomplete because its definition is socially-mediated to begin with. Or, if ISPs were to charge based not on services but instead go deeper, so e.g. ICMP and UDP might be cheaper than TCP, you still need to rely on some judgment made by someone out there. These necessarily incomplete definitions will create huge inefficiencies in the system as a whole, generate useless extra work, and so on.
It hobbles the system as a whole in order to provide the justification for price differentials which would drive profits for ISPs. This is basically a money grab on the part of the ISPs (natural monopolies).
It hobbles the system as a whole in order to provide the justification for price differentials which would drive profits for ISPs. This is basically a money grab on the part of the ISPs (natural monopolies).
> should your ISP be able to offer you a discounted rate to use services that offset their cost (youtube, which has an cache near you, vs vimeo, which doesn't)?
I think this could be reasonable as long as it's not by having YouTube do a deal with the ISP, but is by a company-neutral measure of how much costs are actually lowered for the ISP (which is passed onto you). If Vimeo can do some engineering to reduce cost to the ISP and automatically have the lowered cost passed onto you without Vimeo having to negotiate some special deal with the ISP, then that becomes another area they can compete and innovate on, and hence harnesses the power of competition rather than foster anticompetitive practices.
By contrast, if special deals are allowed ("YouTube traffic is free"), then it would be mutually beneficial for monopolies to offer ISPs kickbacks in return for helping them maintain their monopoly by suppressing competition, while the rest of us lose out.
I think this could be reasonable as long as it's not by having YouTube do a deal with the ISP, but is by a company-neutral measure of how much costs are actually lowered for the ISP (which is passed onto you). If Vimeo can do some engineering to reduce cost to the ISP and automatically have the lowered cost passed onto you without Vimeo having to negotiate some special deal with the ISP, then that becomes another area they can compete and innovate on, and hence harnesses the power of competition rather than foster anticompetitive practices.
By contrast, if special deals are allowed ("YouTube traffic is free"), then it would be mutually beneficial for monopolies to offer ISPs kickbacks in return for helping them maintain their monopoly by suppressing competition, while the rest of us lose out.
Maybe a better example is paying more for electricity from 'green' sources like solar/wind. This is an option offered by PG&E right now.
Comparing to websites, you can have all the "common" websites that have local caches, peered with your ISP directly, for low rate X. If you want access to a niche video streaming startup that has to go through other peers we haven't optimized for, you pay more.
It's still not a perfect analogy, but it forms a similar comparison "Where do I get (content|electricty) from?"
Comparing to websites, you can have all the "common" websites that have local caches, peered with your ISP directly, for low rate X. If you want access to a niche video streaming startup that has to go through other peers we haven't optimized for, you pay more.
It's still not a perfect analogy, but it forms a similar comparison "Where do I get (content|electricty) from?"
I am of the opinion that not only is traffic shaping not inherently evil but is a valuable feature that can be used to improve network efficiency but I cannot trust Comcast and the others to favour innovation and technological improvement over short term profits.
The internet is what makes Silicon Valley go round. Everyone, including Sam Altman, needs to be an activist. Asking for someone else to take point on something so fundamental is like asking Natives to take point on water prot-- wait.
Yeah I thought that was weird too. This is important! But not enough for me to make time for it!
Everyone needs to take action, even if it's the smallest possible action. Take a minute to donate to the EFF or tweet about the issue, or five minutes to write a blog post that actually rallies and informs people. What can we start building now to prepare for when this threat starts manifesting as legislation?
Everyone needs to take action, even if it's the smallest possible action. Take a minute to donate to the EFF or tweet about the issue, or five minutes to write a blog post that actually rallies and informs people. What can we start building now to prepare for when this threat starts manifesting as legislation?
I am happy to help, and honestly if I had more time right now I'd take this on directly--right now is an unusually busy time for me. I agree with you it's critical to Silicon Valley.
Sorry to say, but that's the same for ~everybody. There's always a project to launch, one more feature to code up, one more customer to close, one more support email to respond to.
Thankfully, someone else saw the need for a group of people dedicated to fighting for everybody's rights online, back in 1990. I'm talking, of course, about the EFF.
So you can donate.
The head of the FCC doesn't believe in net neutrality, so it's going to be a long fight so they could use your support.
http://eff.org/donate
Thankfully, someone else saw the need for a group of people dedicated to fighting for everybody's rights online, back in 1990. I'm talking, of course, about the EFF.
So you can donate.
The head of the FCC doesn't believe in net neutrality, so it's going to be a long fight so they could use your support.
http://eff.org/donate
Given Elon & Thiel are both in contact with Trump, if you haven't already done so, it would be worth mentioning it directly to both that this is important to you.
For that matter, maybe this is a chance to you yourself reach out to Trump on an issue and invite him to meet at the White House or come to the Bay Area to meet the next batch of YC startups.
For that matter, maybe this is a chance to you yourself reach out to Trump on an issue and invite him to meet at the White House or come to the Bay Area to meet the next batch of YC startups.
If anyone does this in the bay area and it's public, they will likely be burnt at the stake.
You mean like Elon, Thiel, etc.? If so seems to me as if they're all doing just fine. [1]
Beyond that, point of engaging Trump would be on a topic I would assume everyone agrees is important - and if you think hidding and hoping things will magically get better, well, good luck!
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-meeting-photo-jeff-bezo...
Beyond that, point of engaging Trump would be on a topic I would assume everyone agrees is important - and if you think hidding and hoping things will magically get better, well, good luck!
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-meeting-photo-jeff-bezo...
Thiel was attacked nonstop and people were organizing to stop using PayPal which he is only tangentially affiliated with.
Uber CEO had to stop his collaboration as Lyft started catching up for the first time in a long time.
Elon also faced a lot of heat and had to qualify his statements. Negative reactions towards him were counteracted by his accomplishments and clean energy contributions.
I think people should collaborate but in a clandestine fashion.
Inviting Trump to Bay area would unleash all the rage against Trump towards the startup community. I'm just afraid it would be a bigger "throw stones at Google buses"
Uber CEO had to stop his collaboration as Lyft started catching up for the first time in a long time.
Elon also faced a lot of heat and had to qualify his statements. Negative reactions towards him were counteracted by his accomplishments and clean energy contributions.
I think people should collaborate but in a clandestine fashion.
Inviting Trump to Bay area would unleash all the rage against Trump towards the startup community. I'm just afraid it would be a bigger "throw stones at Google buses"
Be afraid all you want, doesn't matter to me.
Thiel knew he'd be attacked, took a risk, and there's zero reason to believe he's not happy with the results; if you think Thiel cares what the "Bay Area" thinks, I'd be interested in your reasoning.
Uber's not even worth covering, they're currently a cluster F$&@ waiting to happen and the idea that it was somehow born of talking with Trump is what it is.
Bay Area and for the matter the greater tech community needs to engage the world, not withdraw from it.
Thiel knew he'd be attacked, took a risk, and there's zero reason to believe he's not happy with the results; if you think Thiel cares what the "Bay Area" thinks, I'd be interested in your reasoning.
Uber's not even worth covering, they're currently a cluster F$&@ waiting to happen and the idea that it was somehow born of talking with Trump is what it is.
Bay Area and for the matter the greater tech community needs to engage the world, not withdraw from it.
>Bay Area and for the matter the greater tech community needs to engage the world, not withdraw from it.
> Be afraid all you want, doesn't matter to me.
One of these things is not like the other.
> Be afraid all you want, doesn't matter to me.
One of these things is not like the other.
Right, one is addressing a single person that's said they afraid of talking in public for fear of blowback and another is directed to the Bay Area and greater tech community asking them to engage the world.
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
That the blowback from tech employees is a real thing which directly contributes to lack of dialog between people with different political opinions, and not caring about the individual while imploring the community at large to engage is a ridiculous and contradictory position.
A pair of riots in Berkeley within a month, San Jose during the election, the Brendan Eich situation, myriad letters from CEOs post election. To quote sama's recent post [1], "Almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to me, but almost none of them wanted me to use their names—even people from very red states were worried about getting “targeted by those people in Silicon Valley if they knew I voted for him”. One person in Silicon Valley even asked me to sign a confidentiality agreement before she would talk to me, as she worried she’d lose her job if people at her company knew she was a strong Trump supporter."
Care as much or little about the concerns of people not like you as you want, just don't act like you want to have a conversation with them too in the same breath.
1. http://blog.samaltman.com/what-i-heard-from-trump-supporters
A pair of riots in Berkeley within a month, San Jose during the election, the Brendan Eich situation, myriad letters from CEOs post election. To quote sama's recent post [1], "Almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to me, but almost none of them wanted me to use their names—even people from very red states were worried about getting “targeted by those people in Silicon Valley if they knew I voted for him”. One person in Silicon Valley even asked me to sign a confidentiality agreement before she would talk to me, as she worried she’d lose her job if people at her company knew she was a strong Trump supporter."
Care as much or little about the concerns of people not like you as you want, just don't act like you want to have a conversation with them too in the same breath.
1. http://blog.samaltman.com/what-i-heard-from-trump-supporters
There is no contraction, engaging the world, especially those that may not agree with you, is potentially dangerous and if you're afraid to do so, then don't.
> going out and engaging the world is potentially dangerous
Do you think this is reasonable in the context of expressing your support for the leader of your nation at your workplace? I certainly don't think so.
Do you think this is reasonable in the context of expressing your support for the leader of your nation at your workplace? I certainly don't think so.
> I think people should collaborate but in a clandestine fashion.
The fact that people can't even meet to have a discussion is just simply wrong.
Without communication between parties almost nothing will happen.
The fact that people can't even meet to have a discussion is just simply wrong.
Without communication between parties almost nothing will happen.
If you want to keep the Internet open, you're going to have to push for ISPs as a public utility, like the roads are. A big government bureaucracy is better to handle this service, instead of profit-driven private companies, since government is far more efficient than private companies.
There is no way private companies are going to be able to keep the internet open for long. What's their incentive to keep it open? Assume they are against you, and deal with it from there.
And we should be using 40Gbps internet right now, enabling live low-latency video, but we can't because there's no competitive reason for local ISPs to upgrade.
There is no way private companies are going to be able to keep the internet open for long. What's their incentive to keep it open? Assume they are against you, and deal with it from there.
And we should be using 40Gbps internet right now, enabling live low-latency video, but we can't because there's no competitive reason for local ISPs to upgrade.
I propose to organize and for 1 week limit bandwidth to all of our websites to 56k to FCC IP block. I believe it will send much stronger message than any other form of protests. Google, wikipedia, netflix, amazon, facebook, linkedin and everyone else join and show everyone where you stand.
I love this idea, but where do they all stand? Surely someone is paying the lobbyists - or is it only internet providers?
I hear you! I'm in the same boat, I shouldn't point fingers. I'll do what I can.
And when protesters who demand open internet start getting their access cut off, they'll start seeing the analogy. Too late then. :(
[deleted]
> Doing this allows the government to ensure a level playing field
In theory this is a good argument. In practice, my experience is that this argument causes people to write off net neutrality as just being something that's about letting tech bros make lots of money. I've even heard this from folks in the tech industry, who really should know better.
An argument that may be more convincing is that the Internet is the only media channel where we don't get all of our information from the same three or four mega conglomerates. But if net neutrality is eliminated then ISPs are going to pull a Martin Shkreli, and overnight your cost of hosting a Wordpress blog is going to go from $5 a month to $25,000 per month or whatever.
When this happens the only way to have a blog will be to host your content on Facebook, who will be able to decide which points of view are allowed and which are banned. If we lose the Internet, the last free media channel, then there is no going back. Not just on this issue, but on every issue.
In theory this is a good argument. In practice, my experience is that this argument causes people to write off net neutrality as just being something that's about letting tech bros make lots of money. I've even heard this from folks in the tech industry, who really should know better.
An argument that may be more convincing is that the Internet is the only media channel where we don't get all of our information from the same three or four mega conglomerates. But if net neutrality is eliminated then ISPs are going to pull a Martin Shkreli, and overnight your cost of hosting a Wordpress blog is going to go from $5 a month to $25,000 per month or whatever.
When this happens the only way to have a blog will be to host your content on Facebook, who will be able to decide which points of view are allowed and which are banned. If we lose the Internet, the last free media channel, then there is no going back. Not just on this issue, but on every issue.
The best argument I've found for convincing conservatives is to stress that the internet is a platform for commerce, and healthy commerce requires equality of opportunity -- specifically, the opportunity for consumers to access your business.
ISPs literally "own the road", to create an analogy for internet businesses. If the only road company in town installs a toll booth or a series of speed bumps in front of McDonald's because Burger King paid them to, it artificially distorts the market in a way that allows successful companies to pay to entrench themselves and fend off competition.
Innovation and disruption inherently require free and fair access to the storefronts of upstarts, whether physical or digital. To slant the playing field with throttling or zero-rating is tantamount to a big box corp having the ability to pay someone to install a toll booth in front of my competing mom and pop business.
ISPs literally "own the road", to create an analogy for internet businesses. If the only road company in town installs a toll booth or a series of speed bumps in front of McDonald's because Burger King paid them to, it artificially distorts the market in a way that allows successful companies to pay to entrench themselves and fend off competition.
Innovation and disruption inherently require free and fair access to the storefronts of upstarts, whether physical or digital. To slant the playing field with throttling or zero-rating is tantamount to a big box corp having the ability to pay someone to install a toll booth in front of my competing mom and pop business.
Another net neutrality case for conservatives: you might never get a Breitbart or IJReview in a world where Comcast is selling preference to CNN/Newscorp/Disney-ABC.
> If the only road company in town installs a toll booth or a series of speed bumps in front of McDonald's because Burger King paid them to
This kind of thinking will lead to a big debate about what exactly is a speed bump -- how high can they be? Do rumble-strips count? What about potholes?
A better solution would be to just let more companies build roads in your town. Then all the people who want to go to McDonalds will take their business to the other road companies.
This kind of thinking will lead to a big debate about what exactly is a speed bump -- how high can they be? Do rumble-strips count? What about potholes?
A better solution would be to just let more companies build roads in your town. Then all the people who want to go to McDonalds will take their business to the other road companies.
>A better solution would be to just let more companies build roads in your town.
That sounds great, except the roads have all been built. It's prohibitively expensive and risky to try to build out your own parallel set of infrastructure, whether it's roads or cable. I mean, if Google tried and failed to do it, who else is going to be able to succeed?
That sounds great, except the roads have all been built. It's prohibitively expensive and risky to try to build out your own parallel set of infrastructure, whether it's roads or cable. I mean, if Google tried and failed to do it, who else is going to be able to succeed?
The internet is not free and open because some companies are complying with regulations. The internet is free and open because that's what the internet is. If ISP's, content providers, whoever else wants to provide services which aren't free and open then they're not part of the internet. It's sad if lots of people lose internet access because Comcast stops offering it, but the internet won't go away. Other companies will offer free and open access and the internet will live on with those folks.
If it comes to it, you can come over to my house and plug into my ethernet and we'll grab a Slackware CD and start a new internet if we have to. Deal?
If it comes to it, you can come over to my house and plug into my ethernet and we'll grab a Slackware CD and start a new internet if we have to. Deal?
I kind of agree with you, but the free and open internet in your scenario would be a pretty niche thing, kind of like gopher or Usenet is today. I've been thinking about running a gopher server lately, but that doesn't mean that I want the free and open internet to be gopher-only.
In a thread littered with unpleasantness this comment gave me hope.
"then ISPs are going to pull a Martin Shkreli"
So why didn't that happen prior to now? The NN legislation as proposed is new and the internet existed just fine prior to it.
So why didn't that happen prior to now? The NN legislation as proposed is new and the internet existed just fine prior to it.
> So why didn't that happen prior to now?
That's a good question, and it's hard to say. Empirically we can see that it is starting to happen, e.g. with t-mobile not charging users when they consume video and audio data from certain sites.
My guess is that the reason it didn't happen historically is because content was worth almost zero. E.g. Flickr was bought by Yahoo for almost nothing, and if I remember correctly YouTube was on track to go bankrupt until Google bought them to set the legal precedent they wanted.
It's only in the last couple years that the costs of producing and distributing content have now also basically fallen to zero, so it's now possible to make a lot of money in the content business even if any individual item is still worth very little. There have obviously been companies who have made a lot of money on content previously, but mostly only when there was either some quirky situation affecting the price of display ads (e.g. Yahoo) or else when there was some quirky situation affecting the valuation of the company itself (e.g. YouTube).
That's a good question, and it's hard to say. Empirically we can see that it is starting to happen, e.g. with t-mobile not charging users when they consume video and audio data from certain sites.
My guess is that the reason it didn't happen historically is because content was worth almost zero. E.g. Flickr was bought by Yahoo for almost nothing, and if I remember correctly YouTube was on track to go bankrupt until Google bought them to set the legal precedent they wanted.
It's only in the last couple years that the costs of producing and distributing content have now also basically fallen to zero, so it's now possible to make a lot of money in the content business even if any individual item is still worth very little. There have obviously been companies who have made a lot of money on content previously, but mostly only when there was either some quirky situation affecting the price of display ads (e.g. Yahoo) or else when there was some quirky situation affecting the valuation of the company itself (e.g. YouTube).
I don't think that NN legislation is the answer. It's a social solution to a technical problem. We shouldn't be making it illegal to discriminate between traffic types, we should be making it impossible. Encrypt everything by default, encrypt and anonymize DNS, and generally get rid of the ability for ISPs to tell one data stream from another. Unfortunately this requires re-architecting quite a lot of the Internet, so it's even less likely to happen quickly than getting a bunch of politicians to stop listening to lobbyists or ISPs to actually compete with one another.
I don't think that will solve the problem. Even if the ISP can't tell where most of your traffic is going after it leaves their network, they're still going to be able to be able to differentiate between that traffic and traffic destined for a service they control or a third party service that cooperates with them. It stops them from penalising a particular third party service, but not from penalising everything they don't recognise in favour of what they do.
Like Altman, I am amazed that this is not inflaming the community again. In order to pass an unpopular law, you just need to try to pass it several times, until the public gets tired of protesting?
the vast majority of non techies care very little about internet freedom. if we have a nice liberal in office and they don't have much to complain about, they'll go ahead and fight for net neutrality. but it's a little hard to rile them up as much when there's a million outrageous things happening ebrty week.
I suppose the next question is: should the voice of protesters matter more than the overall opinion of the populace, which come election time is that Net Neutrality isn't even worth talking about?
Sanders did fwiw [1]
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sande...
> But this idea is under attack, and I'm surprised the tech community isn't speaking out more forcefully. Although many leading tech companies are now the incumbents, I hope we'll all remember that openness helped them achieve their great success. It could be disastrous for future startups if this were to change--openness is what made the recent wave of innovation happen.
Is it surprising? What organization is supposed to speak up? Tech workers don't have a union so nobody is lobbying for us in DC. We have to hope that enough huge companies and their leaders will act in the way we want and I don't exactly expect Zuckerberg and Thiel to represent me and my interests in Washington.
Is it surprising? What organization is supposed to speak up? Tech workers don't have a union so nobody is lobbying for us in DC. We have to hope that enough huge companies and their leaders will act in the way we want and I don't exactly expect Zuckerberg and Thiel to represent me and my interests in Washington.
>What organization is supposed to speak up? Tech workers don't have a union so nobody is lobbying for us in DC.
There's ACM.
There's ACM.
If there was a tech workers union, presumably it would cover employees at Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and many other companies they are not pro net neutrality. So it wouldn't even be in the self interest of the union to get into the battle.
It needs to be the consumers who speak up, and the businesses that would be negatively affected.
It needs to be the consumers who speak up, and the businesses that would be negatively affected.
The Communications Workers of America (CWA), the biggest communications labor union, covers workers at Verizon and AT&T, but last time around they sided with AT&T and Comcast back in 2014.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/naacp-union-net-neu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/naacp-union-net-neu...
Isn't that mostly call center workers, and installers?
[deleted]
> Tech workers don't have a union
Yes we do, just not on US.
https://www.igmetall.de/engineering-8357.htm
Yes we do, just not on US.
https://www.igmetall.de/engineering-8357.htm
There's the IWW's iu560 (Communications, Computer, and Software Workers Industrial Union).
http://www.iww.org/unions/dept500/iu560
http://www.iww.org/unions/dept500/iu560
As I have said before during previous net neutrality "crises", this is just a symptom of extreme centralization.
The same thing that caused the Indian public to reject internet.org curated by Facebook.
Once we get massive consolidation, whether of banks, telcos, cable companies, social networks, phone makers or whatever else is "too big to fail" then your choice is illusory in the first place. Title I vs Title II isn't the most meaningful choice.
Originally the Internet was designed with no single point of failure, but now email, the web, streaming video, etc. has been centralized.
What we need to do is greenlight technology to enable decentralized:
+ Social Networking instead of server farms whose engineers post on highscalability
+ Mesh Networking instead of cellphone carriers whose networks go down in an emergency
+ Power Generation instead of a power grid that can cut you off anytime
Bitcoin decentralized money. Git decentralized version control. Look at how the power and trust dynamics shifted. That's what we need.
The best way to do that is to fund open source hardware and software projects that will enable this technology to be widely available, and then regulators will have to expand their frameworks to allow it, as they did with bitcoin.
Disclaimer: I am the architect of http://github.com/Qbix/Platform
The same thing that caused the Indian public to reject internet.org curated by Facebook.
Once we get massive consolidation, whether of banks, telcos, cable companies, social networks, phone makers or whatever else is "too big to fail" then your choice is illusory in the first place. Title I vs Title II isn't the most meaningful choice.
Originally the Internet was designed with no single point of failure, but now email, the web, streaming video, etc. has been centralized.
What we need to do is greenlight technology to enable decentralized:
+ Social Networking instead of server farms whose engineers post on highscalability
+ Mesh Networking instead of cellphone carriers whose networks go down in an emergency
+ Power Generation instead of a power grid that can cut you off anytime
Bitcoin decentralized money. Git decentralized version control. Look at how the power and trust dynamics shifted. That's what we need.
The best way to do that is to fund open source hardware and software projects that will enable this technology to be widely available, and then regulators will have to expand their frameworks to allow it, as they did with bitcoin.
Disclaimer: I am the architect of http://github.com/Qbix/Platform
I think the tipping point last time (SOPA/PIPA protests) was when Reddit, Wikipedia, Google, etc. went dark. It's sad we don't have Aaron Swartz to help this time around. It's good to see Sam offering help, but who is actually going to step up?
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.
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.
That's a whole nother issue and equally messed up.
Sorry, to put that comment in context.. There was an article a couple of days back of how immigrants are creating massive value by starting startups in the valley. Well, these guys have the most incentive to stand up for an open internet but they won't/can't.
Hmm. Do you know anyone with a plan, but without the courage?
I don't know if I have the courage, but I definitely don't have a plan.
I feel badly prideful the way that sounds like I'm presuming that I have the capability but not the courage - yet at the same time, I'm reminded of the end of this quote:
“We bring you here to a House for the Feeble-minded and the man who won’t accept that is the man we want. It’s a method that can be cruel but it works. It won’t do to say to a man, ‘You can create. Do so.’ It is much safer to wait for a man to say, ‘I can create, and I will do so whether you wish it or not.’ There are ten thousand men like you, George, who support the advancing technology of fifteen hundred worlds. We can’t allow ourselves to miss one recruit to that number or waste our efforts on one member who doesn’t measure up.”
- Asimov, Profession"
On the rare chance that it's that case - for anyone reading thing and thinking the same think - it's worth asking the question.
I don't know if I have the courage, but I definitely don't have a plan.
I feel badly prideful the way that sounds like I'm presuming that I have the capability but not the courage - yet at the same time, I'm reminded of the end of this quote:
“We bring you here to a House for the Feeble-minded and the man who won’t accept that is the man we want. It’s a method that can be cruel but it works. It won’t do to say to a man, ‘You can create. Do so.’ It is much safer to wait for a man to say, ‘I can create, and I will do so whether you wish it or not.’ There are ten thousand men like you, George, who support the advancing technology of fifteen hundred worlds. We can’t allow ourselves to miss one recruit to that number or waste our efforts on one member who doesn’t measure up.”
- Asimov, Profession"
On the rare chance that it's that case - for anyone reading thing and thinking the same think - it's worth asking the question.
I don't think activism is the answer to these problems. Instead, we need to show consumer benefits of an open internet. Right now, people are totally loving the mono-culture and the internet silos that the mega corps are building (facebook, whatsapp, gmail, google, chrome, apple app store, github to name a few). It's going to hard to convince them unless you can show them tangible benefits.
I think the big companies have totally nailed it. They have kept things free. And they have kept the population sufficiently distracted that there is no time for 'activism' or thinking of society. This means that the big corps can now push reforms unquestioned in their favor.
I think the big companies have totally nailed it. They have kept things free. And they have kept the population sufficiently distracted that there is no time for 'activism' or thinking of society. This means that the big corps can now push reforms unquestioned in their favor.
I don't know how many people are totally loving the mono-culture and many of the "free" social networks are not profitable at all. Very few of them are actually succeeding.
Also, you say activism is not the answer, and then say that the companies have succeeded in part because they have prevented activism from happening by 'distracting' people. I don't think any of this is true and that the argument you make here is self-contradictory.
I really just don't think your comment holds any water at all.
Also, you say activism is not the answer, and then say that the companies have succeeded in part because they have prevented activism from happening by 'distracting' people. I don't think any of this is true and that the argument you make here is self-contradictory.
I really just don't think your comment holds any water at all.
> I don't know how many people are totally loving the mono-culture
Huh? Just see all the gmail ids. Just ask any company as to how many email ids are gmail and prepared to be stunned. Same goes for GitHub, medium. Even so called "decentralized" projects are happily hosting code on github and blogging on medium. (I am not judging the users here by any means. I am just saying they are "happy").
> Also, you say activism is not the answer, and then say that the companies have succeeded in part because they have prevented activism from happening by 'distracting' people.
Keeping products free is the distraction. People give away all sorts of things and start rationalizing in curious ways to get freebies.
Huh? Just see all the gmail ids. Just ask any company as to how many email ids are gmail and prepared to be stunned. Same goes for GitHub, medium. Even so called "decentralized" projects are happily hosting code on github and blogging on medium. (I am not judging the users here by any means. I am just saying they are "happy").
> Also, you say activism is not the answer, and then say that the companies have succeeded in part because they have prevented activism from happening by 'distracting' people.
Keeping products free is the distraction. People give away all sorts of things and start rationalizing in curious ways to get freebies.
A major factor is the unbelievable pain of doing one's own IT work.
Even hosting a blog with Wordpress or Ghost can be a pain, let alone hosting your own git infrastructure. Then you have the whole sign-on / password / account management nightmare. Nobody wants to (sigh, grumble) create yet another (grumble, grumble) account on yet another site.
If there were some kind of open SSO standard that actually worked and was actually low-friction for users, that would go a long way.
That being said I don't have a problem with it. We (ZeroTier) are kind of a decentralization effort, and we use GitHub and Slack because they work and they save time. Use the present to build the future.
Even hosting a blog with Wordpress or Ghost can be a pain, let alone hosting your own git infrastructure. Then you have the whole sign-on / password / account management nightmare. Nobody wants to (sigh, grumble) create yet another (grumble, grumble) account on yet another site.
If there were some kind of open SSO standard that actually worked and was actually low-friction for users, that would go a long way.
That being said I don't have a problem with it. We (ZeroTier) are kind of a decentralization effort, and we use GitHub and Slack because they work and they save time. Use the present to build the future.
>Huh? Just see all the gmail ids.
That doesn't mean people are happy with the situation nor the product. In many situations, as I already mentioned, it doesn't even mean the product is successful. I'm well aware of all these near-monopolies and how many users they have- Gmail's monopoly over email, Google's monopoly over search, YouTube's monopoly over video, etc. Plenty of users are extremely dissatisfied with these services. Furthermore, your point doesn't address the "mono-culture", which is a separate issue from some specific corporations maintaining very high userbases.
>Keeping products free is the distraction. People give away all sorts of things and start rationalizing in curious ways to get freebies.
This doesn't respond to what I said at all. I'm saying there is no evidence that software provided without a direct cost inevitably has an impact in deterring activism.
I worry that you don't understand what "free software" is. Facebook is free as in free beer, not as in freedom. There is a huge difference. You should read up on the definitions of free and proprietary software.
That doesn't mean people are happy with the situation nor the product. In many situations, as I already mentioned, it doesn't even mean the product is successful. I'm well aware of all these near-monopolies and how many users they have- Gmail's monopoly over email, Google's monopoly over search, YouTube's monopoly over video, etc. Plenty of users are extremely dissatisfied with these services. Furthermore, your point doesn't address the "mono-culture", which is a separate issue from some specific corporations maintaining very high userbases.
>Keeping products free is the distraction. People give away all sorts of things and start rationalizing in curious ways to get freebies.
This doesn't respond to what I said at all. I'm saying there is no evidence that software provided without a direct cost inevitably has an impact in deterring activism.
I worry that you don't understand what "free software" is. Facebook is free as in free beer, not as in freedom. There is a huge difference. You should read up on the definitions of free and proprietary software.
The tech community rallied pretty hard in favor of net neutrality last go-round, they were just lucky that Wheeler (head of the FCC) agreed with them.
I think there isn't anything specific to fight against now as there was with SOPA. Once a specific legislation/regulation appears, I think the tech world will strongly oppose again. I also suspect the large tech companies are trying to use their lobbying power behind the scenes preemptively again.
I think there isn't anything specific to fight against now as there was with SOPA. Once a specific legislation/regulation appears, I think the tech world will strongly oppose again. I also suspect the large tech companies are trying to use their lobbying power behind the scenes preemptively again.
To the folks on HN who don't vehemently, vehemently oppose a non-neutral system, your line of thinking puzzles the hell out of me. Is the idea that government regulation is bad in all cases but corporate regulation is OK in all cases? Why? Because you've bought into free market forces making all things better no matter what?
Those forces only make things better unless they don't. To me, it's crazy that's not immediately clear.
In this case, the regulation is for keeping the system free unless you're a monopoly or part of an oligopoly. Your future chances of being in that camp are so minuscule and even smaller if you support killing off Net Neutrality. Are you fighting on behalf your future self that will likely never exist? That's arrogant and delusional.
This is not what Ayn Rand meant by espousing the public good is best served when people are self-interested. That's not the same thing as being delusional.
Those forces only make things better unless they don't. To me, it's crazy that's not immediately clear.
In this case, the regulation is for keeping the system free unless you're a monopoly or part of an oligopoly. Your future chances of being in that camp are so minuscule and even smaller if you support killing off Net Neutrality. Are you fighting on behalf your future self that will likely never exist? That's arrogant and delusional.
This is not what Ayn Rand meant by espousing the public good is best served when people are self-interested. That's not the same thing as being delusional.
[deleted]
How about I don't know if I support or oppose net neutrality because depending on the source it means something different.
I would love to see an actual technical, written definition so that I could tell my Congress folks to put it in a bill.
I would love to see an actual technical, written definition so that I could tell my Congress folks to put it in a bill.
[deleted]
To answer philosophically about it, because your question seems to me to ask for broad strokes, if you're using a resource acknowledged to have aspects of a "public good" to a quantitatively greater degree than other users, you should pay more for it. The footnote in the original article even admits as much. That's not to say I oppose net-neutrality, but to use your words, don't "vehemently, vehemently" oppose a non-neutral system.
Interesting reviewing the list of organizations that signed the letter sent to the FCC by the ACLU & EFF on keeping the internet open:
http://www.commoncause.org/policy-and-litigation/letters-to-...
Really makes you wonder what's going on, since Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. are nowhere to be found on the list.
Really makes you wonder what's going on, since Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. are nowhere to be found on the list.
I think there was deliberate selection of the type of organizations and the interests they represent for this letter; I don't think it's an accident that it doesn't include tech firms and content hosts, but political advocacy groups and content creators.
[deleted]
> 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.
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.
Telecom companies, in general, have no scruples about charging you for what other people send you unsolicited. Up until they got the memo that SMS was on its way out, they used to charge downright extortionate rates for text messages. Same for minutes.
I was convinced in favor of net neutrality by a 2007 study at the University of Florida.[1] When ISPs are allowed to charge content providers individually, there is less incentive to improve overall bandwidth. There's also an incentive to cripple the free tier, especially if it can be done subtly or by neglect over time. So net neutrality seems like good policy.
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20130602210518/http://news.ufl.ed...
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20130602210518/http://news.ufl.ed...
If the physical line itself was separated from the ISP providing you service on the line, this problem would solve itself through natural competition. We almost saw this happen with ADSL but it lost out to the fatter pipes of coax and fiber.
Most people have either one or zero options for coax (i.e. cable) or fiber. That leads to a monopoly where you either have to take whatever Comcast / Time Warner / Verizon offer or live with craptacular DSL. Get rid of that monopoly and have the maintenance of those pipes be run by the local municipality. Then you can have real competition.
Most people have either one or zero options for coax (i.e. cable) or fiber. That leads to a monopoly where you either have to take whatever Comcast / Time Warner / Verizon offer or live with craptacular DSL. Get rid of that monopoly and have the maintenance of those pipes be run by the local municipality. Then you can have real competition.
>What's clearly not OK is taking it further--charging different services different rates based on their relationships with ISPs. You wouldn't accept your electric company charging you different rates depending on the manufacturer of each of your appliances.
This does happen though. Electric companies, phone companies, etc all charge different rates based on who is using the service. Based off of different programs and income based subsidies who is using the service determines the cost paid. This also effects what producers sell to the low end of the spectrum. If electricity is substantially cheaper for lower income consumers, they will care less about paying for better energy efficiency. So you are technically paying a different rate based off what your appliances are.
This does happen though. Electric companies, phone companies, etc all charge different rates based on who is using the service. Based off of different programs and income based subsidies who is using the service determines the cost paid. This also effects what producers sell to the low end of the spectrum. If electricity is substantially cheaper for lower income consumers, they will care less about paying for better energy efficiency. So you are technically paying a different rate based off what your appliances are.
Those involved in technology are often confronted with brutally kafkaesque situations wherein the human and the machine are starkly opposed. Fighting against the machine is often demoralizing, depressing, and dehumanizing - but not always. Not today.
Thank you, Sam, for the mote of hope.
Thank you, Sam, for the mote of hope.
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.
"I really hope an activist or tech leader will step up and organize this fight."
Sums up America 2017. Outsource everything, even your fights.
Sums up America 2017. Outsource everything, even your fights.
Ajit Pai is public enemy number one.
I do agree net neutrality is a good thing, only major thing I disagree with gutting net neutrality as the internet is the future network for everything. But overall I support Ajit Pai because he wants to cut down on regulations it seems from reading some transcripts.
For example there's people who want to regulate Netflix, Amazon Instant video, Playstation Vue, YouTube TV as if they are a cable system, with all the extra regulations the major cable and satellite companies have to follow, and were created way before IP based networks became popular. I feel like the free market should always win, a kid in their basement should be allowed to create competitors.
I personally feel like everything should move to IP Based networks. You don't have to worry about a limited number of stations, as IP based is pretty much unlimited.
So even if people disagree with him on net neutrality, I do believe he's doing good work. Maybe if regulations are cut and made modern we'd have more options in the market. Maybe Google Fiber could be nationwide at some point if regulations were out of the way. Google already owns a bunch of dark fiber. I'd really love if the internet was just one dumb pipe.
For example I have satellite TV and cable internet. When you watch on demand content they use your internet connection to download/stream the shows instead of being beamed down by the satellite. My ISP does not have a cap, but maybe if I lived in another part of the US served by one that does it would be metered as internet traffic, compared to using cable's TV service and watching on-demand which is locally within their own network(and not counted in the internet meter).
I'd love in the future if we had internet only providers but It seems like one is so hard to get going I doubt we'll have that. I know some communities have done their own Fiber, but even were sued to stop it by the major players. Google "communities fiber lawsuit" for example. I don't know why but it seems like depending on your area there's only one cable company, one phone company, and if you are lucky one fiber company. So I really wish it was easier to do ISP startups and compete. I'm not even sure if it's possible to share the lines. The regulations, and politics around it are probably why we aren't really having new entries in the market.
TESTIMONY OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION- https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-336418A1.p...
Commissioner Pai Remarks Before the Churchill Club https://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-church...
For example there's people who want to regulate Netflix, Amazon Instant video, Playstation Vue, YouTube TV as if they are a cable system, with all the extra regulations the major cable and satellite companies have to follow, and were created way before IP based networks became popular. I feel like the free market should always win, a kid in their basement should be allowed to create competitors.
I personally feel like everything should move to IP Based networks. You don't have to worry about a limited number of stations, as IP based is pretty much unlimited.
So even if people disagree with him on net neutrality, I do believe he's doing good work. Maybe if regulations are cut and made modern we'd have more options in the market. Maybe Google Fiber could be nationwide at some point if regulations were out of the way. Google already owns a bunch of dark fiber. I'd really love if the internet was just one dumb pipe.
For example I have satellite TV and cable internet. When you watch on demand content they use your internet connection to download/stream the shows instead of being beamed down by the satellite. My ISP does not have a cap, but maybe if I lived in another part of the US served by one that does it would be metered as internet traffic, compared to using cable's TV service and watching on-demand which is locally within their own network(and not counted in the internet meter).
I'd love in the future if we had internet only providers but It seems like one is so hard to get going I doubt we'll have that. I know some communities have done their own Fiber, but even were sued to stop it by the major players. Google "communities fiber lawsuit" for example. I don't know why but it seems like depending on your area there's only one cable company, one phone company, and if you are lucky one fiber company. So I really wish it was easier to do ISP startups and compete. I'm not even sure if it's possible to share the lines. The regulations, and politics around it are probably why we aren't really having new entries in the market.
TESTIMONY OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION- https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-336418A1.p...
Commissioner Pai Remarks Before the Churchill Club https://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-church...
Yeah, like those pesky regulations that stop your ISP from selling your entire internet history at will without telling you or your permission. Pai will finally get rid of it so ISPs can be free and the market can decide. By which I mean the ISPs can decide, since they own the market.
Public enemy number one is a pretty fair assessment as far as anyone in tech is concerned.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/ad-industry-lobb...
Public enemy number one is a pretty fair assessment as far as anyone in tech is concerned.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/ad-industry-lobb...
Selling your entire internet history sounds very wrong to me.
Unless it's anonymized for like statistical purposes, sorta like saying Google.com is the #1 website like Alexa does.
I just wish instead of having 100's of pages of regulations scattered throughout a bunch of different acts where it's impossible for one person to know. Even if you are trying to not break the law, you probably will by accident. I know I heard a statistic the average American commits 3 felonies a day without knowing.
I feel like we should have more common sense, and have more straight to the point shorter regulations. It is impossible for someone in one life time to even read all the laws and regulations that exists.
It just seems like the laws, and even agreements for services are long and bloated. If people actually read their subscriber agreements they sign when getting cable installed, it seems like the cable guy would be waiting on you for quite a bit. I doubt anyone even reads the terms of service for Facebook.
But we even have PSA's to tell people to not text and drive, so maybe the world isn't smart enough to go by common sense.
Then not all regulations are even online. Maybe if everything was in markdown, categorized and formatted to be more digestible things would be better. I know we need some regulations, but it seems we have way too many and poor formatting. It just seems like insanity to me.
Unless it's anonymized for like statistical purposes, sorta like saying Google.com is the #1 website like Alexa does.
I just wish instead of having 100's of pages of regulations scattered throughout a bunch of different acts where it's impossible for one person to know. Even if you are trying to not break the law, you probably will by accident. I know I heard a statistic the average American commits 3 felonies a day without knowing.
I feel like we should have more common sense, and have more straight to the point shorter regulations. It is impossible for someone in one life time to even read all the laws and regulations that exists.
It just seems like the laws, and even agreements for services are long and bloated. If people actually read their subscriber agreements they sign when getting cable installed, it seems like the cable guy would be waiting on you for quite a bit. I doubt anyone even reads the terms of service for Facebook.
But we even have PSA's to tell people to not text and drive, so maybe the world isn't smart enough to go by common sense.
Then not all regulations are even online. Maybe if everything was in markdown, categorized and formatted to be more digestible things would be better. I know we need some regulations, but it seems we have way too many and poor formatting. It just seems like insanity to me.
Why not Google or Facebook founders, executives, and employees whose salaries are paid with the profits of selling other peoples' information? Why not the C-suite of the ISPs who will happily sell user data? Why not the entire adtech industry? Ajit Pai is one actor in a very corrupt system, and a lot of that system is based in San Francisco.
Do Google and Facebook really sell data? From my understanding, they keep the data for ad targeting, feature/content recommendations. Like if I place an ad on Facebook I could put 18 to 35, who likes travel, etc to promote a hotel booking site as an example. Even if you do retarget with Facebook advertising, they don't even show you the names of the people. You have like a retargeting list, it tells you how many people but not much information on them.
Even third party developers get an ID number per user associated to that app only(think of it as a proxy to your real id number). It seems like Facebook and Google cares a lot more about privacy than people think. If they just sold me the data, I could run off with it but by keeping the data to themselves and letting marketers pay them to make use of it they make recurring revenue.
From my understanding, LexisNexis and other data brokers were the ones that are selling the data. Here's a 60 minutes clip on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAT_ina93NY
I don't have any relationship with LexisNexis, I never agreed to anything yet they have information on me. Another example is I was looking at my credit report, and it even lists addresses from childhood. I never had a credit card back then, why do they have information on me? At least with Google and Facebook, I gave consent and I see a benefit. You can even buy lists of people and their medications(sounds like a HIPPA violation but the data brokers know this stuff)
Even third party developers get an ID number per user associated to that app only(think of it as a proxy to your real id number). It seems like Facebook and Google cares a lot more about privacy than people think. If they just sold me the data, I could run off with it but by keeping the data to themselves and letting marketers pay them to make use of it they make recurring revenue.
From my understanding, LexisNexis and other data brokers were the ones that are selling the data. Here's a 60 minutes clip on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAT_ina93NY
I don't have any relationship with LexisNexis, I never agreed to anything yet they have information on me. Another example is I was looking at my credit report, and it even lists addresses from childhood. I never had a credit card back then, why do they have information on me? At least with Google and Facebook, I gave consent and I see a benefit. You can even buy lists of people and their medications(sounds like a HIPPA violation but the data brokers know this stuff)
Yes. Giving the NSA direct access to their databases doesn't seem like caring about user privacy to me. I don't perceive the 'consent' issue the same way; sending an email or uploading a picture to the internet shouldn't require 100 different data points on my device and location. YMMV, but I find working for companies who's business model is to exploit other people's personal information for profit is an enormously distasteful thing to do.
The whole discussion is a farce at this point. Tech workers who literally created the incentive to make clickbait content, filter bubbles, and data silos are now upset with "fake news", social polarization, and a "closed" net, while flatly refusing to acknowledge their role in getting us here over the last 20 years. Ajit Pai is the last person to blame when wondering who broke the net.
The whole discussion is a farce at this point. Tech workers who literally created the incentive to make clickbait content, filter bubbles, and data silos are now upset with "fake news", social polarization, and a "closed" net, while flatly refusing to acknowledge their role in getting us here over the last 20 years. Ajit Pai is the last person to blame when wondering who broke the net.
I haven't been following the whole NSA/CIA stuff as much lately, but from my understanding Google, Facebook never directly sold people's information. Yes, they monetize it I knew that but It was from my understanding companies mostly "rent" the data without getting a copy of the data(just using it).
> YMMV, but I find working for companies who's business model is to exploit other people's personal information for profit is an enormously distasteful thing to do.
For the record, I don't work for any company's that abuse people's personal information. I do have a bit of knowledge on how Facebook ads work because I've used them before.
I don't even view Google or Facebook as doing bad compared to the large data brokers.
> YMMV, but I find working for companies who's business model is to exploit other people's personal information for profit is an enormously distasteful thing to do.
For the record, I don't work for any company's that abuse people's personal information. I do have a bit of knowledge on how Facebook ads work because I've used them before.
I don't even view Google or Facebook as doing bad compared to the large data brokers.
I work in marketing. Not selling data direct to people like you or I does not mean they don't sell data. Depending on how hard you try, you can get enormously specific with just the data you are supplied by them. I perceive their business model as fundamentally bad (I would use the word wrong or repugnant), and their willingness to comply with us intelligence agencies is worse. I realize this is an increasingly uncommon sentiment in the bay, that sort of idealism died here a long time ago.
https://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking...
https://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking...
> You wouldn't accept your electric company charging you different rates for each of your appliances.
I can get cheaper electricity for my water heater if I choose to attach it to a source that can be interrupted at times of peak load. I'm not quite sure this line of reasoning will stand.
Edit: It appears the linked article has been updated since I originally posted this. The new text is:
> You wouldn't accept your electric company charging you different rates depending on the manufacturer of each of your appliances.
This makes the argument much clearer and my concerns no longer seem important.
I can get cheaper electricity for my water heater if I choose to attach it to a source that can be interrupted at times of peak load. I'm not quite sure this line of reasoning will stand.
Edit: It appears the linked article has been updated since I originally posted this. The new text is:
> You wouldn't accept your electric company charging you different rates depending on the manufacturer of each of your appliances.
This makes the argument much clearer and my concerns no longer seem important.
Your comparison is invalid. Consumers generally tolerate that network management for some things is ok, for example, constraining the transfer speed of users at peak times.
This is a different scenario - the comparable scenario would be that your electricity company charges you a variable rate depending on which manufacturers appliances you buy, for example, if you buy and use only samsung appliances, you get a cheaper rate (and the electric company gets a kickback from samsung).
When you pay for an internet connection the only practical matter that I expect my ISP to care about is the speed I expect to get, the latency of the network, and the volume of traffic I am permitted over a period. Everything else is a congestion issue, and if they are going to manage what I can access to and modify the parameters of my connection based on resources I access, I am not buying Internet access, I am buying access to a curated online service.
This is a different scenario - the comparable scenario would be that your electricity company charges you a variable rate depending on which manufacturers appliances you buy, for example, if you buy and use only samsung appliances, you get a cheaper rate (and the electric company gets a kickback from samsung).
When you pay for an internet connection the only practical matter that I expect my ISP to care about is the speed I expect to get, the latency of the network, and the volume of traffic I am permitted over a period. Everything else is a congestion issue, and if they are going to manage what I can access to and modify the parameters of my connection based on resources I access, I am not buying Internet access, I am buying access to a curated online service.
> the comparable scenario would be that your electricity company charges you a variable rate depending on which manufacturers appliances you buy
The scenario you introduce is different from the specific line I was responding to. My intention was to show that some more consideration and rework of the idea could bring more clarity. You have helped refine Sam's point and now I understand it better, but as I read it, it seemed like something that should be addressed.
> Consumers generally tolerate that network management for some things is ok, for example, constraining the transfer speed of users at peak times.
I could have a switch to change my water heater to the non-interruptible service if I needed to use it during a time of peak demand. How does "pay more for priority" fit into the net neutrality picture? Is it okay as long as the user is the one choosing which of their traffic is in the fast or slow lane?
The scenario you introduce is different from the specific line I was responding to. My intention was to show that some more consideration and rework of the idea could bring more clarity. You have helped refine Sam's point and now I understand it better, but as I read it, it seemed like something that should be addressed.
> Consumers generally tolerate that network management for some things is ok, for example, constraining the transfer speed of users at peak times.
I could have a switch to change my water heater to the non-interruptible service if I needed to use it during a time of peak demand. How does "pay more for priority" fit into the net neutrality picture? Is it okay as long as the user is the one choosing which of their traffic is in the fast or slow lane?
>The scenario you introduce is different from the specific line I was responding to. My intention was to show that some more consideration and rework of the idea could bring more clarity.
In your example you are choosing to accept interruption of service in exchange for a preferential rate.
Net neutrality preserves the integrity of internet access by stating that ISPs may not interfere with traffic based on it's origin or destination for competitive reasons (e.g. to coerce payments from service providers a consumer may choose to access). The core premise of Internet access is that a consumer is paying for access to the Internet. If a consumer chooses to permit the service provider to modulate service at the consumer side in order to gain preferential treatment (better price, etc), then this is a consumer choice.
> I could have a switch to change my water heater to the non-interruptible service if I needed to use it during a time of peak demand. How does "pay more for priority" fit into the net neutrality picture?
There are numerous ways to "pay for priority"; even with electricity you can pay a supplier to upgrade capacity in your area to ensure that you have the ability to more consistently draw power, especially at peak times (granted this is not a trivial process). With Internet access the same thing is available - if I want a 10Mbps connection, that has minimum bandwidth of 1Mbps at peak times, and 99% uptime, then I could reasonably expect to pay more than someone who only wants a 1Mbps connection, can tolerate a minimum bandwidth of 512Kbps at peak, and only needs 90% uptime.
This is not a net neutrality issue, and this should be consumer choice (I am old and from Canada, so the numbers above are low :P); allowing lower cost terms of service for less guarantees is a time honored tradition in delivering utilities and services, but most utilities in many parts of the world have a minimum standard that must be met to achieve regulatory compliance for consumer services (e.g. water pressure upper and lower limits, natural gas line pressure, electricity amperage and voltage, etc). Anything above that regulation-blessed "consumer grade" is an opportunity to extract value for priority, and is compatible with net neutrality.
The Net Neutrality issue is that your provider can then regulate the service which you have bought and paid for (network access to your ISPs network peers, and via those access to the Internet) to prevent you from access resources from specific sites and resources, and deliberately applying QoS to degrade a users experience with those third party sites and services in order to coerce the upstream services to pay the ISP.
This is why I say that a service that does this is not Internet Service, but rather a curated network service.
In your example you are choosing to accept interruption of service in exchange for a preferential rate.
Net neutrality preserves the integrity of internet access by stating that ISPs may not interfere with traffic based on it's origin or destination for competitive reasons (e.g. to coerce payments from service providers a consumer may choose to access). The core premise of Internet access is that a consumer is paying for access to the Internet. If a consumer chooses to permit the service provider to modulate service at the consumer side in order to gain preferential treatment (better price, etc), then this is a consumer choice.
> I could have a switch to change my water heater to the non-interruptible service if I needed to use it during a time of peak demand. How does "pay more for priority" fit into the net neutrality picture?
There are numerous ways to "pay for priority"; even with electricity you can pay a supplier to upgrade capacity in your area to ensure that you have the ability to more consistently draw power, especially at peak times (granted this is not a trivial process). With Internet access the same thing is available - if I want a 10Mbps connection, that has minimum bandwidth of 1Mbps at peak times, and 99% uptime, then I could reasonably expect to pay more than someone who only wants a 1Mbps connection, can tolerate a minimum bandwidth of 512Kbps at peak, and only needs 90% uptime.
This is not a net neutrality issue, and this should be consumer choice (I am old and from Canada, so the numbers above are low :P); allowing lower cost terms of service for less guarantees is a time honored tradition in delivering utilities and services, but most utilities in many parts of the world have a minimum standard that must be met to achieve regulatory compliance for consumer services (e.g. water pressure upper and lower limits, natural gas line pressure, electricity amperage and voltage, etc). Anything above that regulation-blessed "consumer grade" is an opportunity to extract value for priority, and is compatible with net neutrality.
The Net Neutrality issue is that your provider can then regulate the service which you have bought and paid for (network access to your ISPs network peers, and via those access to the Internet) to prevent you from access resources from specific sites and resources, and deliberately applying QoS to degrade a users experience with those third party sites and services in order to coerce the upstream services to pay the ISP.
This is why I say that a service that does this is not Internet Service, but rather a curated network service.
slightly modified:
The comparable scenario would be that your electricity company not only provides electricity, but also owns an appliance manufacturing chain. The electricity company charges you a different rate depending on which manufacturer's appliances you buy. Additionally, if you buy their appliances, then you get free electricity for those appliances.
The above scenario doesn't wrap in that it's not just a lower payment rate but, due to artificial caps on monthly usage, can lead to a situation where the only option becomes "use the ISPs preferred music/video/etc provider, or don't use that type of service at all".
edit:
P = (A * R) + (B * R') + C
Where:
P is the final bill a user pays (or data charged towards a cap)
A is the amount of services that are provided by the ISP/Provider/Pipe
R is the rate that is charged for the provider's own services
B is the amount of services that are provided by a third party
R' is the rate that is charged for the those third party services
C is a base payment amount (or zero in the case of considering P a data cap)
Assuming that equation, then the lower R is, the higher R' is, and lower P is, the more likely a consumer is going to choose ISP services.
So, if R is 0, then the ISP can slowly lower P (when considering it as a data cap) to be basically zero. Thus pushing out an ISP competitor services (or making new services not even viable), as the user is highly incentivized to use ISP services. The user is also incentivized to use ISP services, even if they are worse, otherwise be penalized with data cap usage or higher rates.
When R == R', then the ISP is a "dumb pipe", and competes to provides those services, and has no other incentive to do anything other than provide transit.
The comparable scenario would be that your electricity company not only provides electricity, but also owns an appliance manufacturing chain. The electricity company charges you a different rate depending on which manufacturer's appliances you buy. Additionally, if you buy their appliances, then you get free electricity for those appliances.
The above scenario doesn't wrap in that it's not just a lower payment rate but, due to artificial caps on monthly usage, can lead to a situation where the only option becomes "use the ISPs preferred music/video/etc provider, or don't use that type of service at all".
edit:
P = (A * R) + (B * R') + C
Where:
P is the final bill a user pays (or data charged towards a cap)
A is the amount of services that are provided by the ISP/Provider/Pipe
R is the rate that is charged for the provider's own services
B is the amount of services that are provided by a third party
R' is the rate that is charged for the those third party services
C is a base payment amount (or zero in the case of considering P a data cap)
Assuming that equation, then the lower R is, the higher R' is, and lower P is, the more likely a consumer is going to choose ISP services.
So, if R is 0, then the ISP can slowly lower P (when considering it as a data cap) to be basically zero. Thus pushing out an ISP competitor services (or making new services not even viable), as the user is highly incentivized to use ISP services. The user is also incentivized to use ISP services, even if they are worse, otherwise be penalized with data cap usage or higher rates.
When R == R', then the ISP is a "dumb pipe", and competes to provides those services, and has no other incentive to do anything other than provide transit.
Presumably they wouldn't care which appliance you attach? The same deal would make total sense with e.g a smart charger for an electric car (in fact anything else would be nuts) and probably anything else with a big enough battery. If the difference between the two rates you are charged is large enough it may even make sense to have a battery and switch between the cheap source and the normal one if the cheap one is cut of.
I can imagine peak/off hour internet pricing, and that does sound reasonable to me as long as the overall rates are reasonable. There's no way people would go for the ridiculous per-GB rates mobile companies are charging right now, for instance.
I think it holds in the scenario you're talking about. If ISP's had different rates at different times and made those times public, you could choose to stop yourself from using certain things at those times, but it's your choice (or whoever you decide to let make that choice for you, but that doesn't have to be the ISP).
Am I the only person frustrated that this article contains a call to arms and then no actionable items? I'm on board, but what should I do about it? Put that in your article!
I love the electricity company/appliance analogy. That seems fairly accurate and something that's easily relatable to the layman who doesn't understand the details of the internet.
Can you explain? The analogy seems like a terrible one to me.
We are not talking about charging different amounts of money depending on the brand of device you are consuming the data on. NN is about not differentiating the cost or quality of bits based on their source. In the US, can you not opt to pay a slightly higher rate for renewable energy? (This happens in Australia).
I'm all for NN, but the analogy Sam used doesn't hold in my opinion.
As an additional thought from someone outside the US: NN doesn't exist in places like Australia, and has actually overall led to better services, especially in the early days of the internet, because overseas data is significantly more costly to provide than local data. The difference is that we have more robust competition and we can more easily switch providers, where is seems in the US (purely based on things I've read on the internet) that the near-duopoly cuts consumer choice, so if NN was not in place, people would have little ability to switch providers, and they would be stuck with it.
Is the lack of competition the real issue here? If people in the US had a choice of many providers and it was easy to switch, then people would likely switch to services that are Net Neutral.
We are not talking about charging different amounts of money depending on the brand of device you are consuming the data on. NN is about not differentiating the cost or quality of bits based on their source. In the US, can you not opt to pay a slightly higher rate for renewable energy? (This happens in Australia).
I'm all for NN, but the analogy Sam used doesn't hold in my opinion.
As an additional thought from someone outside the US: NN doesn't exist in places like Australia, and has actually overall led to better services, especially in the early days of the internet, because overseas data is significantly more costly to provide than local data. The difference is that we have more robust competition and we can more easily switch providers, where is seems in the US (purely based on things I've read on the internet) that the near-duopoly cuts consumer choice, so if NN was not in place, people would have little ability to switch providers, and they would be stuck with it.
Is the lack of competition the real issue here? If people in the US had a choice of many providers and it was easy to switch, then people would likely switch to services that are Net Neutral.
> Is the lack of competition the real issue here?
Yes. Governments -- from federal to small towns -- created rules giving de facto local monopolies to certain ISPs and making market entry of competition very difficult. And yet, people want to solve this created problem with more rules about how ISPs are allowed to compete.
Yes. Governments -- from federal to small towns -- created rules giving de facto local monopolies to certain ISPs and making market entry of competition very difficult. And yet, people want to solve this created problem with more rules about how ISPs are allowed to compete.
I think Sam needs to clarify some terms.
> The internet is a public good
Black's Law says a public good is "An item that taxation is used to finance, the consumption of which has been decided by the whole of society. It is not an item for consumption that an individual has decided upon."
Does Sam want to tax all of us for net access, then have the government decide how it should be allocated? Do ISPs disappear under this scenario? Does Sam want the same government that has gone insane collecting personal data to have further control over net our access? Does he trust them to do the right thing with it? If so, does he have any evidence it would do so?
> I believe access should be a basic right.
"Basic right" is not defined and doesn't have a legal tradition, so I'm not sure what it means. Is it meant to be a constitutionally delineated right like (in the USA) freedom of the press, or to worship, or to bear arms? Because none of these require that we have the government confiscate our money in order that others may exercise those rights.
> The internet is a public good
Black's Law says a public good is "An item that taxation is used to finance, the consumption of which has been decided by the whole of society. It is not an item for consumption that an individual has decided upon."
Does Sam want to tax all of us for net access, then have the government decide how it should be allocated? Do ISPs disappear under this scenario? Does Sam want the same government that has gone insane collecting personal data to have further control over net our access? Does he trust them to do the right thing with it? If so, does he have any evidence it would do so?
> I believe access should be a basic right.
"Basic right" is not defined and doesn't have a legal tradition, so I'm not sure what it means. Is it meant to be a constitutionally delineated right like (in the USA) freedom of the press, or to worship, or to bear arms? Because none of these require that we have the government confiscate our money in order that others may exercise those rights.
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.
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.
Plus different rates at different times of the day, and in different seasons. We pay less for electricity in the daytime in winter than we do in the daytime in summer when A/C puts greater demands on the network.
Charging per volume of traffic would eliminate the
net neutrality issue.
If I use Netflix on Comcast I would pay Comcast for my use of their network. Comcast would pay Netflix's ISP for the use of that network (at negotiated rate lower than my rate because of volume). Netflix would pay their ISP For their usage as well.(also priced for volume)
The two end point rates would have to be set so carriers make a profit and the responsibility of traffic is shared between the sender and receiver. (people who get thing for free tend to treat it as worthless).
This model has to be worked out to completion to understand all the implications.
The key thing is if Comcast was getting reasonable revenue from moving Netflix traffic it would not need to throttle other people's traffic to bully consumers to buy on demand TV from Comcast.
As side effect this may reduce usage by people who download stuff just because they can because its free/already paid for. This is related to free things are treated badly concept I mentioned earlier.
If I use Netflix on Comcast I would pay Comcast for my use of their network. Comcast would pay Netflix's ISP for the use of that network (at negotiated rate lower than my rate because of volume). Netflix would pay their ISP For their usage as well.(also priced for volume)
The two end point rates would have to be set so carriers make a profit and the responsibility of traffic is shared between the sender and receiver. (people who get thing for free tend to treat it as worthless).
This model has to be worked out to completion to understand all the implications.
The key thing is if Comcast was getting reasonable revenue from moving Netflix traffic it would not need to throttle other people's traffic to bully consumers to buy on demand TV from Comcast.
As side effect this may reduce usage by people who download stuff just because they can because its free/already paid for. This is related to free things are treated badly concept I mentioned earlier.
It's an interesting idea, but unlimited is nice. This idea kinda reminds me of how the telephone network works. Basically everything a call is connected, there's a "dip" fee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location_Routing_Number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location_Routing_Number
Usage monitoring (charging) sits squarely next to traffic shaping and filtering. Just no.
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 single exception to NN and weigh it on a case-by-case basis about whether it's "fair" or not.
Barring some government oversight panel that bans or allows anti-NN practices on a case by case basis, I think it's better for the market to decide. ISP's shouldn't be able to extort businesses to be allowed in at all, but offering premium speeds (as Netflix has paid for years), free data, etc. are within the realms of anti-NN practices that I feel are acceptable.
The net neutrality issue is not black and white.
Barring some government oversight panel that bans or allows anti-NN practices on a case by case basis, I think it's better for the market to decide. ISP's shouldn't be able to extort businesses to be allowed in at all, but offering premium speeds (as Netflix has paid for years), free data, etc. are within the realms of anti-NN practices that I feel are acceptable.
The net neutrality issue is not black and white.
> 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 only allowing a restricted set of possibilities, of which the other person's best option is the one you want to happen. This makes it sound like the company has no chioce in the matter: they are just presenting you with the options, and you are the one who has to choose between eliminating this poor Iraqi's internet or giving her partial access. In reality, the company has stacked the deck by presenting you with this particular pair of options.
I'm not saying it's completely illegitimate for a company to want to sponsor free partial internet for those who don't have it in some places of the world.
But I am saying it is opposite from the ideal we should be working towards in already-developed countries like the USA. Ideally, the company providing internet should not at all be vertically integrated with the company providing websites on it and should have no incentive to prioritize one over the other.
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 only allowing a restricted set of possibilities, of which the other person's best option is the one you want to happen. This makes it sound like the company has no chioce in the matter: they are just presenting you with the options, and you are the one who has to choose between eliminating this poor Iraqi's internet or giving her partial access. In reality, the company has stacked the deck by presenting you with this particular pair of options.
I'm not saying it's completely illegitimate for a company to want to sponsor free partial internet for those who don't have it in some places of the world.
But I am saying it is opposite from the ideal we should be working towards in already-developed countries like the USA. Ideally, the company providing internet should not at all be vertically integrated with the company providing websites on it and should have no incentive to prioritize one over the other.
I remember a progression going something like this:
1. Local folks taking turns calling a handful of BBSes.
2. BBSes synchronizing some messages with each other, even long-distance.
3. BBSes providing some limited Internet services (email, newsgroups).
4. Quasi-Internet services like Prodigy, Compuserve, AOL.
5. Slow but "real" Internet access. All content available but still had to ration use.
6. Fast, ubiquitous, unmetered, unthrottled Internet.
7. An ISP that doesn't care if you run a server.
While I strongly sympathize with anyone sitting at #6 or #7 who views a move to any previous step as a huge regression, I can't sympathize with denying people any kind of connectivity unless they can snap their fingers and manifest the infrastructure to enable #5. All of those previous steps served a purpose at the time.
Developing economies have an opportunity to learn from our mistakes as first mover, and leapfrog ahead to something more robust against all these threats we're facing today (centralization, stratification, eavesdropping, denial of service, walled gardens...).
BBSes were an artifact of the old phone infrastructure, so that's not a necessary phase, but otherwise the story would look roughly the same: Local communities gradually connect peer-to-peer and then interconnect. This time wirelessly, securely, without entrenched middlemen.
1. Local folks taking turns calling a handful of BBSes.
2. BBSes synchronizing some messages with each other, even long-distance.
3. BBSes providing some limited Internet services (email, newsgroups).
4. Quasi-Internet services like Prodigy, Compuserve, AOL.
5. Slow but "real" Internet access. All content available but still had to ration use.
6. Fast, ubiquitous, unmetered, unthrottled Internet.
7. An ISP that doesn't care if you run a server.
While I strongly sympathize with anyone sitting at #6 or #7 who views a move to any previous step as a huge regression, I can't sympathize with denying people any kind of connectivity unless they can snap their fingers and manifest the infrastructure to enable #5. All of those previous steps served a purpose at the time.
Developing economies have an opportunity to learn from our mistakes as first mover, and leapfrog ahead to something more robust against all these threats we're facing today (centralization, stratification, eavesdropping, denial of service, walled gardens...).
BBSes were an artifact of the old phone infrastructure, so that's not a necessary phase, but otherwise the story would look roughly the same: Local communities gradually connect peer-to-peer and then interconnect. This time wirelessly, securely, without entrenched middlemen.
I think we're on different pages somewhat because you seem to be thinking mostly about challenges facing developing economies in various parts of the world, whereas I'm thinking mostly about the infrastructure, vampiric monopolies, and regulations in the USA, where we are mostly trying to (1) prevent regressions from #6 backwards, (2) move up places that sit at #5 for no reason other than monopoly ISPs, (3) improve infrastructure for true #5s.
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.
I think it's worse. It might provide some low quality entertainment as a TV replacement, which just takes up people's time. It might be in that person's interest at the time but not in the interest of society in general.
I don't like to tell others what is the best use of their time, or what "society" wants them to be doing. People are free to choose what to do with their own time.
There is no limit on my truconnect phone for calls texts or data. There are multiple companies set up outside the general relief office and I am eligible for a phone from each one; so, even if there wasn't a generous data plan, a combination of phones would solve that. As does using free wifi which is available at all libraries and police stations where I live.
Posting garbage about poor people's situations that is untrue only serves to hurt everybody. Please stop.
Posting garbage about poor people's situations that is untrue only serves to hurt everybody. Please stop.
I have never heard of a government provided phone with unlimited data plan. I don't think the government should be providing a "combination of phones" for free to each poor person. I am happy you can use free WiFi. I think that if you want to watch YouTube and google is willing to pay for your data, that's OK and no one will be hurt.
I see your point and it does make some sense. But imagine this analogous situation, a poor American cannot afford the electricity bill for her home, and a lightbulb company offers to provide reduced-cost electricity with the conditions that (1) she can only use lightbulbs purchased from that company in her home, and (2) the electricity only powers the lightbulbs - no other appliances in the house can be turned on.
Now you could make the same argument that you made in your post, but I don't think the lightbulb company comes off looking so good.
Now you could make the same argument that you made in your post, but I don't think the lightbulb company comes off looking so good.
Yes and no. I think it's entirely reasonable for ISPs to innovate, play with zero-rating, etc. I just think it should be done neutrally: if an ISP wants to zero-rate, they should publish a rate schedule that applies to anyone who wants to participate. If an ISP wants to try other novel services (QoS, whatever), I think the same principle should apply: make it fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory, and transparent.
Verizon's zero-rating of themselves is anything but.
Verizon's zero-rating of themselves is anything but.
I believe Verizon can zero rate their own services, and it's OK. I also believe that they should have to allow zero rating of any service, even a competitor's, if the service provider is willing to pay for their users' data using transparent, open pricing that is equally applied.
The problem with Verizon's zero-rating of their own product is that it's very hard to define what they're charging for it and therefore what the terms should be for competitors.
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 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
FWIW, that isn't just a hypothetical situation; it's already happening. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
We're also talking about Net Neutrality in the United States, largely, and I would reckon almost explicitly.
What does that have to do with Iraq and its internet access?? Not that it isn't important. It just has nothing to do with internet access in the United States.
you're not exactly elaborating on how that example applies.
I see no evidence here, yet you claim Net neutrality 'absolutists' need to tone down their rhetoric, and give no cited or strong example as to what is actually wrong with net neutrality.
What does that have to do with Iraq and its internet access?? Not that it isn't important. It just has nothing to do with internet access in the United States.
you're not exactly elaborating on how that example applies.
I see no evidence here, yet you claim Net neutrality 'absolutists' need to tone down their rhetoric, and give no cited or strong example as to what is actually wrong with net neutrality.
OK, so philosophically speaking, you only care about net neutrality in America? I thought that NN was a universal philosophy about the freedom of the internet.
If you do believe that Iraqis should be able to have zero rated Wikipedia, because they are poor, shouldn't poor Americans (of which their are millions living in abject poverty) be able to get zero rated services as well?
If you do believe that Iraqis should be able to have zero rated Wikipedia, because they are poor, shouldn't poor Americans (of which their are millions living in abject poverty) be able to get zero rated services as well?
I do care personally. I'm just saying net neutrality policies implemented in the United States* effecting only companies that operate their networks in the US is not a great place to discuss whether or not an Iraqi citizen or the country if Iraq should implement net neutrality regulations
However the FCC of which the article speaks (which sets the tone of the conversation that is about what article I would naturally think) is based and regulating companies and is regulating institutions within ....you guessed it! The United States.
I don't believe Iraqis should have zero rated internet access. I also believe you aren't quoting me saying as such. Again I ask: how is what Iraqs telecom regulations are have an impact on the FCC?
And to be clear I believe strongly in net neutrality in the USA and abroad. It just holds no direct bearing on FCC policy.
I think zero rating in essence limits access, allows ISPs to pick winners and losers on the internet, and could threaten the next great platform for free speech.
I'm still awaiting a real factual rebuttal to net neutrality. I'd love to hash these ideas out. How does zero rating actually benefit anyone? How does the current changes and near term purposed structure of telecom regulations benefit the average consumer? How would you seek to increase competition specifically.
Not hide vagaries of "reduce regulation". What regulations exactly?
In this same thread I posted at length what I believe to be strong facts in favor of net neutrality. I can re post them here if you like.
However the FCC of which the article speaks (which sets the tone of the conversation that is about what article I would naturally think) is based and regulating companies and is regulating institutions within ....you guessed it! The United States.
I don't believe Iraqis should have zero rated internet access. I also believe you aren't quoting me saying as such. Again I ask: how is what Iraqs telecom regulations are have an impact on the FCC?
And to be clear I believe strongly in net neutrality in the USA and abroad. It just holds no direct bearing on FCC policy.
I think zero rating in essence limits access, allows ISPs to pick winners and losers on the internet, and could threaten the next great platform for free speech.
I'm still awaiting a real factual rebuttal to net neutrality. I'd love to hash these ideas out. How does zero rating actually benefit anyone? How does the current changes and near term purposed structure of telecom regulations benefit the average consumer? How would you seek to increase competition specifically.
Not hide vagaries of "reduce regulation". What regulations exactly?
In this same thread I posted at length what I believe to be strong facts in favor of net neutrality. I can re post them here if you like.
> 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.
You're describing colonialism. Let me rephrase what you said: "It's better for poor Iraqi to get free access to American web services even though that hurts other upstart web services (such as Iraqi ones), than for poor Iraqis to have no web services at all."
How is this different that colonial powers sending back wealth from the colonies they conquered? If "eyeballs" are the currency of the internet, what you're describing channels those eyeballs to US companies while suppressing local competition that might keep that wealth in the countries of origin.
You're describing colonialism. Let me rephrase what you said: "It's better for poor Iraqi to get free access to American web services even though that hurts other upstart web services (such as Iraqi ones), than for poor Iraqis to have no web services at all."
How is this different that colonial powers sending back wealth from the colonies they conquered? If "eyeballs" are the currency of the internet, what you're describing channels those eyeballs to US companies while suppressing local competition that might keep that wealth in the countries of origin.
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.
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.
And this is exactly where I philosophically disagree with you. I would rather the Iraqi have access to Wikipedia than have no internet at all. It's saying that you, as a rich American, know what's best for poor foreigners. You would demand someone get everything, or they get nothing.
I'm not a rich american, you're a bit presumptive there.
I'm from Peru. I came from a well-off peruvian background, and I've seen the families of my rich peruvian peers as well as foreigners exploit the hell out of poor people in that country, all while claiming that anyone who wants to enforce some minimum standards or think long-term, is "condescending", or "paternalistic".
I've put forward the case of America being hooked on an endless and destructive addiction to cars. I can bring up many others, such as the existing ones with opioids, or unhealthy food. What do you put forward? How many drug pushers have a healthy relationship to their clientele, and help them knock the habit as soon as possible?
I'm from Peru. I came from a well-off peruvian background, and I've seen the families of my rich peruvian peers as well as foreigners exploit the hell out of poor people in that country, all while claiming that anyone who wants to enforce some minimum standards or think long-term, is "condescending", or "paternalistic".
I've put forward the case of America being hooked on an endless and destructive addiction to cars. I can bring up many others, such as the existing ones with opioids, or unhealthy food. What do you put forward? How many drug pushers have a healthy relationship to their clientele, and help them knock the habit as soon as possible?
Sorry for presuming you are a rich American instead of a "well-off" peruvian. You are the one comparing drug dealers to free Wikipedia, so I don't know where to begin the argument as you already went off the deep end!
It's not free Wikipedia that's the problem, it's free Facebook that's the problem.
Stop being disingenuous, you know full-well that's what Zuckerberg was aiming for with `internet.org`.
Stop being disingenuous, you know full-well that's what Zuckerberg was aiming for with `internet.org`.
Lets be honest here. Wikipedia isn't going to be funding the expansion of internet networks on the basis that it can fund priority zero rating. It will be American or Chinese consumer facing companies with massive bankrolls and business models built on addictive consumer engagement. Think Amazon fighting Aliexpress for priority access to the Iraq marketplace on the basis of network access, rather than efficiency in product logistics.
The idea that NN vs. non-NN network proliferation is an intrinsically paternalistic battle is flipped on its head when cast in real terms.
The idea that NN vs. non-NN network proliferation is an intrinsically paternalistic battle is flipped on its head when cast in real terms.
It's revealing how you suddenly change the example from "Facebook" to "Wikipedia".
What if instead of wikipedia it was zombo.com?
I don't accept either the assertion regarding being in an ivory tower or the premise regarding Wikipedia and Iraqis.
I'm not sure I agree with the premise you baldly assert: could you explain why it is true?
If you think that it's unfair that Iraqis can access Wikipedia for free because the data is zero rated, then you disagree with my premise, and you are a net neutrality absolutist.
If you believe that it is OK that Iraqis can access Wikipedia for free via zero rating, then there are exceptions to NN, because zero rating is inherently anti-NN. From then on, it is a slippery slope. Is it OK to zero rate data only in "poor" countries? The moment they get rich enough, must we ban it? Is any non-profit allowed to zero rate, but all for-profits are not?
My point is, once you open the door to anti-NN practices being acceptable, you must then start analyzing all situations individually.
I respect NN absolutists although I disagree with them. At least they have a coherent philosophy.
If you believe that it is OK that Iraqis can access Wikipedia for free via zero rating, then there are exceptions to NN, because zero rating is inherently anti-NN. From then on, it is a slippery slope. Is it OK to zero rate data only in "poor" countries? The moment they get rich enough, must we ban it? Is any non-profit allowed to zero rate, but all for-profits are not?
My point is, once you open the door to anti-NN practices being acceptable, you must then start analyzing all situations individually.
I respect NN absolutists although I disagree with them. At least they have a coherent philosophy.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I love the political and ethical debate surrounding this, both in this thread and elsewhere. As a technologist and a software developer I think we should use every means available to stop these sorts of laws from taking effect and harming what should be a completely neutral internet.
With that being said, I would like to ask from a technical perspective, what can we do if this does go into effect? I remember a quote, I want to say it was by Sit Timothy Berners-Lee, but I can't find it. So I will just state it myself.
Any lack of neutrality within the internet network is not a feature or a regulation but is in fact a bug within the system. When a bug is found, software engineers find ways around those bugs.
So, if ISPs finally succeed in causing our internet to no longer be neutral, how will we be moving around that bug?
With that being said, I would like to ask from a technical perspective, what can we do if this does go into effect? I remember a quote, I want to say it was by Sit Timothy Berners-Lee, but I can't find it. So I will just state it myself.
Any lack of neutrality within the internet network is not a feature or a regulation but is in fact a bug within the system. When a bug is found, software engineers find ways around those bugs.
So, if ISPs finally succeed in causing our internet to no longer be neutral, how will we be moving around that bug?
>So, if ISPs finally succeed in causing our internet to no longer be neutral, how will we be moving around that bug?
It wouldnt be easy, but mesh networks are the best option I'm aware of.
It wouldnt be easy, but mesh networks are the best option I'm aware of.
The protocol cjdns and its distributed deployment at Hyperboria is the largest scale starting point I'm aware of.
I think doing this might have advantages increasing freedom at the other end of the stack too - if you can drop out to cheap Internet on a mesh network with local traffic free, you might find the advantage of having a Nextcloud Box in your house (instead of Dropbox) clearer.
I think doing this might have advantages increasing freedom at the other end of the stack too - if you can drop out to cheap Internet on a mesh network with local traffic free, you might find the advantage of having a Nextcloud Box in your house (instead of Dropbox) clearer.
[deleted]
I don't think anyone here is going to argue that the internet shouldn't be open.
The real question behind that – and where we differ – is how the role of government fits into that.
If you believe government is inherently good and necessary to enable a "basic right" like the internet, then yes, of course, government should be the one to keep the internet open. This is Sam's view.
On the other hand, if you distrust government and believe their own interests for power and control are always in play, then handing them even more control of the internet is absolutely not the solution.
Knowing what we know of the NSA's mass-surveilance and CIA's targeted hacking and surveillance for unclear-at-best purposes, doesn't that at least give you pause about whether government should be the one to keep the internet open?
The real question behind that – and where we differ – is how the role of government fits into that.
If you believe government is inherently good and necessary to enable a "basic right" like the internet, then yes, of course, government should be the one to keep the internet open. This is Sam's view.
On the other hand, if you distrust government and believe their own interests for power and control are always in play, then handing them even more control of the internet is absolutely not the solution.
Knowing what we know of the NSA's mass-surveilance and CIA's targeted hacking and surveillance for unclear-at-best purposes, doesn't that at least give you pause about whether government should be the one to keep the internet open?
> If you believe government is inherently good and necessary to enable a "basic right" like the internet, then yes, of course, government should be the one to keep the internet open. This is Sam's view.
I don't believe that the government is inherently good, but at least the government is democratically elected. The CEOs at Comcast/Verizon are not. Allowing them to exert control over internet content while participating in a market that is inherently NOT FREE is a recipe for disaster and a closed internet.
I don't believe that the government is inherently good, but at least the government is democratically elected. The CEOs at Comcast/Verizon are not. Allowing them to exert control over internet content while participating in a market that is inherently NOT FREE is a recipe for disaster and a closed internet.
While the NSA's mass-surveillance and the CIA's targeted hacking cannot be overlooked, these organisations are for all intents and purposes separate entities to the FCC. The FCC's view and ability to enforce net neutrality will never effect the NSA and CIA; I don't know what, if anything, would. And besides, ISP's have formed oligopolies for most regions. Do you trust them to keep the internet open?
Framing it as purely a question of trust in government and pointing out an example of our interests not being represented is not the entire surface of the argument. The government's stated purpose is inherently good (though they do not necessarily act in a manner consistently with that stated purpose). We have a limited degree of control over how we are governed, and we have ways to express dissatisfaction. None of that holds true for a corporation. Their stated purpose is to create value for shareholders, the voting power that stock gives you is a fraction of the power of your vote as a citizen, and in the case of a monopoly over an important good or service, you have ZERO ways to express dissatisfaction.
Knowing what we know of anti-competitive practices and the tragedy of the commons, doesn't that at least give you pause about whether corporations should be the one to keep the internet open?
Knowing what we know of anti-competitive practices and the tragedy of the commons, doesn't that at least give you pause about whether corporations should be the one to keep the internet open?
What are the technical, business & political hurdles that prevent routing level encryption from providing enough privacy that neutrality falls out automatically and the question of net neutrality legislation becomes moot?
If Telco Carriers continue to invest in their wireless infrastructure, then data "fast lanes" will emerge naturally.
In the Carnegie model, 2G and 3G towers could be subsidized for accessing Wikipedia (for example) while new 5G towers are only available to premium subscribers.
Look at the Millions be spent dismantling the 2G network. That bandwidth could be subsidized by the FCC for the common good. https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/wireless/KM10696...
In the Carnegie model, 2G and 3G towers could be subsidized for accessing Wikipedia (for example) while new 5G towers are only available to premium subscribers.
Look at the Millions be spent dismantling the 2G network. That bandwidth could be subsidized by the FCC for the common good. https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/wireless/KM10696...
Other than below what are some of the other arguments against NN? I also have a number from 0 to 5 next to each indicating how plausible I find these arguments, please shed more light on this if needed as well:
- 3 caching, if you're closer to a cache edge you pay less.
- 1 we give you a heavily discounted data plan but show you only content we want to make money off of you, argument being at least you get something instead of nothing if you're very poor.
- 2 regulations are mostly bad, you don't want government sticking its nose in everything.
- 0 monopolies want their moat to grow.
- 3 caching, if you're closer to a cache edge you pay less.
- 1 we give you a heavily discounted data plan but show you only content we want to make money off of you, argument being at least you get something instead of nothing if you're very poor.
- 2 regulations are mostly bad, you don't want government sticking its nose in everything.
- 0 monopolies want their moat to grow.
pro NN: "Oh my god some service I want may charge me with a pricing scheme I don't understand/like! Let's get government bureaucrats to control that for me!"
anti-NN: "If you let the federal government dictate how packets are treated.... then you let the federal government dictate how packets are treated. Perhaps you are familiar with Ed Snowden, Wikileaks and recent revelations about the NSA etc? no concern at all eh? You just want your Netflizzzzzz. Ok then"
anti-NN: "If you let the federal government dictate how packets are treated.... then you let the federal government dictate how packets are treated. Perhaps you are familiar with Ed Snowden, Wikileaks and recent revelations about the NSA etc? no concern at all eh? You just want your Netflizzzzzz. Ok then"
Yeah... it's sort of a lose-lose honestly, I think the model used in Canada and the UK is quite good - the government forced the big ISPs to lease last-mile lines. Keeps a working free market with competition, many people started switching to smaller ISPs with lower rates and unlimited bandwidth caps, a few years later the big guys increased their speeds, increased their caps and made it relatively cheap to go to unlimited.
It fixes more than just the net neutrality problem, it also fixes the lack of infrastructure improvement by making big ISPs have a monopoly on last mile improvements for the first year or two - they're greatly incentivized to keep improving infrastructure and speeds or lose customers to the smaller guys who can run leaner. It's a pretty clever regulatory model that manipulates incentives quite well.
I'm sure there are flaws, regulatory models are rarely perfect, but from what I've seen over the last 10 years going from 5mbit DSL to gigabit fibre for only about 1.5x the cost, I'd say it's doing a pretty good job, without any net neutrality enforcement or any complicated legislation - just by giving the regulatory authority the ability to compel ISPs to lease lines.
It fixes more than just the net neutrality problem, it also fixes the lack of infrastructure improvement by making big ISPs have a monopoly on last mile improvements for the first year or two - they're greatly incentivized to keep improving infrastructure and speeds or lose customers to the smaller guys who can run leaner. It's a pretty clever regulatory model that manipulates incentives quite well.
I'm sure there are flaws, regulatory models are rarely perfect, but from what I've seen over the last 10 years going from 5mbit DSL to gigabit fibre for only about 1.5x the cost, I'd say it's doing a pretty good job, without any net neutrality enforcement or any complicated legislation - just by giving the regulatory authority the ability to compel ISPs to lease lines.
It's a terrific plea from Sam. He speaks for Ycombinator and by proxy, independant hackers like myself. But there is just so much peace of mind in it for the big boys.
> What's clearly not OK is taking it further--charging different services different rates based on their relationships with ISPs. You wouldn't accept your electric company charging you different rates depending on the manufacturer of each of your appliances.
Some electric companies do charge different rates to different types of customers depending on what type of business those customers are in and w/o regard to actual usage (which can also vary rates).
Some electric companies do charge different rates to different types of customers depending on what type of business those customers are in and w/o regard to actual usage (which can also vary rates).
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...
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...
> Are ISPs monopolies in the US
In many parts of it, yes, they are, because of deals that ISPs have struck with local governments.
> wouldn't stopping these monopolies be the surest way
Yes, and every time it's been tried, the ISPs go to court and, since they have much deeper pockets, end up getting the attempts shot down.
In many parts of it, yes, they are, because of deals that ISPs have struck with local governments.
> wouldn't stopping these monopolies be the surest way
Yes, and every time it's been tried, the ISPs go to court and, since they have much deeper pockets, end up getting the attempts shot down.
Okay so maybe YC should be funding a few clever ISP startups in the US?
There really is decent competition for Internet in the UK, it's surprisingly successful at stopping this type of stupid stuff from happening.
There really is decent competition for Internet in the UK, it's surprisingly successful at stopping this type of stupid stuff from happening.
> maybe YC should be funding a few clever ISP startups in the US?
I think that would be a great idea.
I think that would be a great idea.
If only Sam knew someone that had the President's ear...
[deleted]
[deleted]
In my opinion, the Internet is the best modern day example of something working fairly with minimal regulation.
This is all very rich coming from someone who also wants a totalitarian government regime dedicated to suppressing machine learning research.
http://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-2
http://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-2
Work on physical layer redundancy and independence. Even if you want one, primary, default network, you're going to need competition to keep it healthy.
And I for one want alternatives that work around the damage of current chokeholds.
And I for one want alternatives that work around the damage of current chokeholds.
Part of the problem is that "the internet" has not provided a technical solution yet to the claimed problem (the laziness and shiftiness of ISPs not upgrading simple crossconnects is bs though).
If someone wants to stream netflix, youtube or grab something from a torrent why not have a content agnostic(safe harbor) block cache distributed around the internet?
This is most concretely expressed by ipfs https://ipfs.io/ but it's an old idea -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_centric_networking
Bittorrent itself is a limited form of it. On some level AMP from google and CDNs are trying to make up for its lack.
As long as the ISP doesn't actively force this on their users but instead its something companys and people actually want I think its a net good to make this a thing.
We should mature and adopt IPFS AND fight the net neutrality battle.
If someone wants to stream netflix, youtube or grab something from a torrent why not have a content agnostic(safe harbor) block cache distributed around the internet?
This is most concretely expressed by ipfs https://ipfs.io/ but it's an old idea -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_centric_networking
Bittorrent itself is a limited form of it. On some level AMP from google and CDNs are trying to make up for its lack.
As long as the ISP doesn't actively force this on their users but instead its something companys and people actually want I think its a net good to make this a thing.
We should mature and adopt IPFS AND fight the net neutrality battle.
Those looking to roll back net neutrality are better organized, better funded, and better connected.
I hate to say it, but this battle seems lost.
We don't need to squander our time arguing over the finer points of the policy. We need a simple way to explain it to the masses.
I hate to say it, but this battle seems lost.
We don't need to squander our time arguing over the finer points of the policy. We need a simple way to explain it to the masses.
I think lobbyists should solve this problem, but here's an idea anyway: what if we synchronized our fireworks to go off on the 4th of July at 4:04 AM in protest?
The problem is that the Big Four (or five, if you count Microsoft) just aren't that interested in it. There's a lot of benefit to them to end neutrality.
I don't think there's a net benefit to them (which is why they've been mostly pro-Open Internet); OTOH, they are better positioned than smaller players to deal with it, so they aren't that motivated.
My entire life I have had access to only one ISP. I want very clear competition before give up on net neutrality. That's not going to happen though :-/
We probably need a grassroots effort for VPNs like "Let's Encrypt" is for https. It will eat our batteries faster, but it's worth it.
Do not put two spaces after a period. Please.
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/two-space...
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/...
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/two-space...
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/...
> There's an argument that Internet Service Providers should be able to charge a metered rate based on usage.
For home Utilities, this is based on the fact that, indeed, your usage pattern is a couple of things
1) In the best of Utility markets, electricity has no real elasticity. Electrical demand is a constant game of just simply keep pace with existing demand as much as possible. There is no excess capacity problems per say, as the game is trying to be as efficient as possible.
2) For the most part, people's usage patterns are routinely predicable and stable, so the demand cost associated can be metered reasonably and with relative transparency (Not to say, its completely transparent, because its not, though its very well regulated in comparison to say, internet service access & quality). This allows a relatively consistent and low variable cost of delivery of this service, however its not a 'fixed' cost, with the exception usually of the wiring the house itself to the grid.
3) The device in which a home uses, in fact, can be measured in absolute terms. For instance, your appliances can be calculated to the letter how much they will cost to run (see here, for instance: http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html). I would argue that this is not true of internet usage, which can vary EXTREMELY widely. The EIA gives a nice summary on this too: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electrici...
Now, often people will say, reasonably, that in an environment maintained much like the power utilities, if things could be achieved to this level of usage/monitoring/charging for use would make sense. Transparent pricing, easy ways to calculate usage based on the app or app(s) or some other methodology for chunking the pricing structure so its really transparent and stable to price out a month to month usage pattern for the average person. Sounds cool right? Well, here is some notable differences:
(As an aside, for fun, imagine a world where the app had to tell you how much on average it cost to use for an hour on a metered connection, like how energy star rated appliances tell you their yearly cost)
Broadband is a completely different story
1) Wired service has a fixed cost and tons of excess capacity. The cost, while not cheap is fixed, per house or neighborhood, and that infrastructure doesn't have to be changed out for many years, in some cases a decade or more. Once the wired service has been installed to a house, thats it. the ISP then can flip the service on and start delivering product to the homes at virtually no cost after that. There is no ongoing 'generation' of bandwidth to closely meet demand. The technology itself, after all, takes care of all that. All the ISP has to do is run the ship smoothly, but they don't have to build a new bandwidth power plant to make more bandwidth.
2) Which leads me to my second point. There is a ton of bandwidth in the system already. WE know this. The system not only has a fixed cost, but the actual capacity of the wired services being deployed already have a ton of extra bandwidth capacity, in particular if we are talking about home users. From DSL Reports https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Deconstructing-The-Exafl... we get this great line (i encourage everyone to read the full report):
Andrew Odlyzko is one of the nation's top experts on global Internet traffic. Stationed at the University of Minnesota, Odlyzko posts all of his data to his website, and notes that while growth is strong, it doesn't necessitate drastic new pricing model shifts (metered billing), or wailing to the heavens about the dire menace that is P2P traffic. "There is not a single sign of an unmanageable flood of traffic," Odlyzko says. "If anything, a slowdown is visible more than a speedup," he says
And thats just from 2008, and the situation for bandwidth excess capacity has actually improved:
Tech Dirt reports from 2012 (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/17425221736/cable...):
The relevant bit, in response to a Michael Powell, a cable industry lobbyist:
If usage caps were about "fairness," carriers would offer the nation's grandmothers a $5-$15 a month tier that accurately reflected her twice weekly, several megabyte browsing of the Weather Channel website. Instead, what we most often see are low caps and high overages layered on top of already high existing flat rate pricing, raising rates for all users. Does raising rates on a product that already sees 90% profit margins sound like "fairness" to you?
Even as far back as 2008, they tried to push the bandwidth hog myth (https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-Bandwidth-Hog-is-a-M...):
relevant quote:
Assuming that if disruptive users exist (which, as mentioned above we could not prove) they would be amongst those that populate the top 1% of bandwidth users during peak periods. To test this theory, we crossed that population with users that are over cap (simulating AT&T’s established data caps) and found out that only 78% of customers over cap are amongst the top 1%, which means that one fifth of customers being punished by the data cap policy cannot possibly be considered to be disruptive (even assuming that the remaining four fifths are). Data caps, therefore, are a very crude and unfair tool when it comes to targeting potentially disruptive users. The correlation between real-time bandwidth usage and data downloaded over time is weak and the net cast by data caps captures users that cannot possibly be responsible for congestion. Furthermore, many users who are "as guilty" as the ones who are over cap (again, if there is such a thing as a disruptive user) are not captured by that same net.
Also see this: https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/myth-bandwid...
3) [Opinion piece here]: Fair and open internet access is in my mind, is going to become a first amendment issue, or at least should be treated as one. The growth and power of being able to be seen, heard, and read on the internet is quickly, as we all know, supplanting most if not all other forms of media. And for the media it is enabling, other mediums that carry forward, like video, are quickly consolidating onto the internet in great numbers. This makes it the place for public speech. While the space may be non-physical (virtual), the ability for ISPs to pick winners and losers to access will have inevitably terrible political and economic consequences, and not just for start ups. Imagine if employees who got cancer from working in an industrial facility could not publish their stories to say, Medium, because a large ISP like Comcast will refuse to carry medium's traffic in and around that issue, or at all, if it becomes a hot bed for other interests that are willing to pay vast sums of money to filter that traffic from ever being delivered or surfacing. Does this sound farfetched? I don't think so. We know groups have tried to do this with newspapers in the past, and of course groups have also tried to do things like pressure individual websites from publishing things to. If you open the internet and mandate its traffic is treated equally regardless, it largely negates the ability for this to happen on that level, as in an ideal implementation, the ISPs would be stripped (and monitored to ensure) that they aren't reading any traffic in the wild that they don't have an explicit reason to do so (Say, a warrant to tap into a connection of a suspected murder looking at their network traffic or something)
4) While we are talking about this, there is no damn spectrum crunch either, its a nice myth that wireless carriers/ISPs are using to justify their underhanded tactics here, because physics dictates there can be a spectrum crunch. that doesn't mean there is or soon will be a spectrum crunch:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/17425221736/cable...
https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-Bandwidth-Hog-is-a-M...
https://gigaom.com/2012/01/30/is-the-spectrum-crisis-a-myth/
https://gigaom.com/2012/10/21/the-myth-of-the-wireless-spect...
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/507486/the-spectrum-crunc...
http://www.androidauthority.com/wireless-industry-flipped-bu...
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121004/024...
For home Utilities, this is based on the fact that, indeed, your usage pattern is a couple of things
1) In the best of Utility markets, electricity has no real elasticity. Electrical demand is a constant game of just simply keep pace with existing demand as much as possible. There is no excess capacity problems per say, as the game is trying to be as efficient as possible.
2) For the most part, people's usage patterns are routinely predicable and stable, so the demand cost associated can be metered reasonably and with relative transparency (Not to say, its completely transparent, because its not, though its very well regulated in comparison to say, internet service access & quality). This allows a relatively consistent and low variable cost of delivery of this service, however its not a 'fixed' cost, with the exception usually of the wiring the house itself to the grid.
3) The device in which a home uses, in fact, can be measured in absolute terms. For instance, your appliances can be calculated to the letter how much they will cost to run (see here, for instance: http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html). I would argue that this is not true of internet usage, which can vary EXTREMELY widely. The EIA gives a nice summary on this too: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electrici...
Now, often people will say, reasonably, that in an environment maintained much like the power utilities, if things could be achieved to this level of usage/monitoring/charging for use would make sense. Transparent pricing, easy ways to calculate usage based on the app or app(s) or some other methodology for chunking the pricing structure so its really transparent and stable to price out a month to month usage pattern for the average person. Sounds cool right? Well, here is some notable differences:
(As an aside, for fun, imagine a world where the app had to tell you how much on average it cost to use for an hour on a metered connection, like how energy star rated appliances tell you their yearly cost)
Broadband is a completely different story
1) Wired service has a fixed cost and tons of excess capacity. The cost, while not cheap is fixed, per house or neighborhood, and that infrastructure doesn't have to be changed out for many years, in some cases a decade or more. Once the wired service has been installed to a house, thats it. the ISP then can flip the service on and start delivering product to the homes at virtually no cost after that. There is no ongoing 'generation' of bandwidth to closely meet demand. The technology itself, after all, takes care of all that. All the ISP has to do is run the ship smoothly, but they don't have to build a new bandwidth power plant to make more bandwidth.
2) Which leads me to my second point. There is a ton of bandwidth in the system already. WE know this. The system not only has a fixed cost, but the actual capacity of the wired services being deployed already have a ton of extra bandwidth capacity, in particular if we are talking about home users. From DSL Reports https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Deconstructing-The-Exafl... we get this great line (i encourage everyone to read the full report):
Andrew Odlyzko is one of the nation's top experts on global Internet traffic. Stationed at the University of Minnesota, Odlyzko posts all of his data to his website, and notes that while growth is strong, it doesn't necessitate drastic new pricing model shifts (metered billing), or wailing to the heavens about the dire menace that is P2P traffic. "There is not a single sign of an unmanageable flood of traffic," Odlyzko says. "If anything, a slowdown is visible more than a speedup," he says
And thats just from 2008, and the situation for bandwidth excess capacity has actually improved:
Tech Dirt reports from 2012 (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/17425221736/cable...):
The relevant bit, in response to a Michael Powell, a cable industry lobbyist:
If usage caps were about "fairness," carriers would offer the nation's grandmothers a $5-$15 a month tier that accurately reflected her twice weekly, several megabyte browsing of the Weather Channel website. Instead, what we most often see are low caps and high overages layered on top of already high existing flat rate pricing, raising rates for all users. Does raising rates on a product that already sees 90% profit margins sound like "fairness" to you?
Even as far back as 2008, they tried to push the bandwidth hog myth (https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-Bandwidth-Hog-is-a-M...):
relevant quote:
Assuming that if disruptive users exist (which, as mentioned above we could not prove) they would be amongst those that populate the top 1% of bandwidth users during peak periods. To test this theory, we crossed that population with users that are over cap (simulating AT&T’s established data caps) and found out that only 78% of customers over cap are amongst the top 1%, which means that one fifth of customers being punished by the data cap policy cannot possibly be considered to be disruptive (even assuming that the remaining four fifths are). Data caps, therefore, are a very crude and unfair tool when it comes to targeting potentially disruptive users. The correlation between real-time bandwidth usage and data downloaded over time is weak and the net cast by data caps captures users that cannot possibly be responsible for congestion. Furthermore, many users who are "as guilty" as the ones who are over cap (again, if there is such a thing as a disruptive user) are not captured by that same net.
Also see this: https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/myth-bandwid...
3) [Opinion piece here]: Fair and open internet access is in my mind, is going to become a first amendment issue, or at least should be treated as one. The growth and power of being able to be seen, heard, and read on the internet is quickly, as we all know, supplanting most if not all other forms of media. And for the media it is enabling, other mediums that carry forward, like video, are quickly consolidating onto the internet in great numbers. This makes it the place for public speech. While the space may be non-physical (virtual), the ability for ISPs to pick winners and losers to access will have inevitably terrible political and economic consequences, and not just for start ups. Imagine if employees who got cancer from working in an industrial facility could not publish their stories to say, Medium, because a large ISP like Comcast will refuse to carry medium's traffic in and around that issue, or at all, if it becomes a hot bed for other interests that are willing to pay vast sums of money to filter that traffic from ever being delivered or surfacing. Does this sound farfetched? I don't think so. We know groups have tried to do this with newspapers in the past, and of course groups have also tried to do things like pressure individual websites from publishing things to. If you open the internet and mandate its traffic is treated equally regardless, it largely negates the ability for this to happen on that level, as in an ideal implementation, the ISPs would be stripped (and monitored to ensure) that they aren't reading any traffic in the wild that they don't have an explicit reason to do so (Say, a warrant to tap into a connection of a suspected murder looking at their network traffic or something)
4) While we are talking about this, there is no damn spectrum crunch either, its a nice myth that wireless carriers/ISPs are using to justify their underhanded tactics here, because physics dictates there can be a spectrum crunch. that doesn't mean there is or soon will be a spectrum crunch:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/17425221736/cable...
https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-Bandwidth-Hog-is-a-M...
https://gigaom.com/2012/01/30/is-the-spectrum-crisis-a-myth/
https://gigaom.com/2012/10/21/the-myth-of-the-wireless-spect...
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/507486/the-spectrum-crunc...
http://www.androidauthority.com/wireless-industry-flipped-bu...
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121004/024...
I haven't yet made up my mind on net neutrality. But Sam says: "I believe access should be a basic right".
My question is: How can something be a human right if you need to pay for it? Because as of today you still need to pay an ISP for internet access.
My question is: How can something be a human right if you need to pay for it? Because as of today you still need to pay an ISP for internet access.
A lot of folks would consider personal security a basic right, but someone still has to pay for the police.
Some folks believe that healthcare should be a basic right, and people definitely have to pay for that.
Some folks believe that healthcare should be a basic right, and people definitely have to pay for that.
I won't get into the healthcare topic as it's still a mess in my opinion, however, regarding one's right to security, as far as I know police do not have a duty to protect someone. [1]
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-pol...
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-pol...
Net neutrality, as promoted by this article's author, requires the elimination of an open Internet because it requires a central authority which will determine who can charge what and what they can charge for.
There's already a central authority for most places - it's called Comcast/AT&T/Verizon and you don't even get a say in this authority's leadership (unlike government). By eliminating net neutrality these local monopolies now want to extend their control not only to what customers will pay but also to what internet services they wish to provide/favour.
> There's already a central authority for most places - it's called Comcast/AT&T/Verizon and you don't even get a say in this authority's leadership (unlike government).
Not to contradict your basic point with a this, but, technically, you do: through government. Corporations are creatures of law, and their governance is ultimately itself governed by rules set by the chartering government, and further constrained by the governments of jurisdictions in which the corporation seeks permission to operate.
Not to contradict your basic point with a this, but, technically, you do: through government. Corporations are creatures of law, and their governance is ultimately itself governed by rules set by the chartering government, and further constrained by the governments of jurisdictions in which the corporation seeks permission to operate.
> Not to contradict your basic point with a this, but, technically, you do: through government.
Yes, that's the point of net neutrality. Whereas an internet with no net neutrality regulation means that corporations have final say.
Yes, that's the point of net neutrality. Whereas an internet with no net neutrality regulation means that corporations have final say.
An Internet with no net neutrality regulation means no one has a final say. An Internet with net neutrality regulation means the same people who enjoy slaughtering brown people will be in charge of the entire Internet.
Does anyone else think this thread smells astroturfed?
Not exactly surprising.
I'm afraid we can't do the SOPA/PIPA protests again :(
The enemies of the open internet only have to win once, but to fend them off we have to win every single time. SOPA/PIPA protests had a lot of momentum, and they "won", but within weeks the same intrusive, anti-consumer practices were injected into some other bill that just got pushed through anyways.
I just don't see how we can win. Not without some seriously strong top-down consumer protection laws. Net neutrality needs to solidify into law, and get some serious teeth. And I'm talking Amendment-level protections, not something the next chump-in-chief can come along and pull the rug out from under like they're doing with health care right now.
I just don't see how we can win. Not without some seriously strong top-down consumer protection laws. Net neutrality needs to solidify into law, and get some serious teeth. And I'm talking Amendment-level protections, not something the next chump-in-chief can come along and pull the rug out from under like they're doing with health care right now.
There is no "winning" the war as long as there is disagreement - of which there always will be.
That's why the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. To overturn this law, or to make consumer protection laws force neutrality you only have to win "once" where the other side has to keep defending.
The net result is that both sides are always constantly fighting for what they want and one side wins sometimes, and the other side wins other times.
That's why the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. To overturn this law, or to make consumer protection laws force neutrality you only have to win "once" where the other side has to keep defending.
The net result is that both sides are always constantly fighting for what they want and one side wins sometimes, and the other side wins other times.
When's the last time consumer protection on the internet "won" though?
My browsing history is about to go up for sale. My emails are fair game for the US government with no warrant. My ISP is free to double-charge for peering, driving my Netflix subscription costs up. My mobile operator is streaming certain services without it counting against my data, while services I want to use still do. I have to pay ridiculous amounts of money to my ISP for a decent connection, despite the government giving telecoms huge subsidies (our own tax dollars) in exchange for building nationwide fiber, most of which went straight to the company's own coffers with no repercussions.[1]
If there was at least some back-and-forth, I would see your point, but as it stands I only see one failure after another.
[1] http://newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
My browsing history is about to go up for sale. My emails are fair game for the US government with no warrant. My ISP is free to double-charge for peering, driving my Netflix subscription costs up. My mobile operator is streaming certain services without it counting against my data, while services I want to use still do. I have to pay ridiculous amounts of money to my ISP for a decent connection, despite the government giving telecoms huge subsidies (our own tax dollars) in exchange for building nationwide fiber, most of which went straight to the company's own coffers with no repercussions.[1]
If there was at least some back-and-forth, I would see your point, but as it stands I only see one failure after another.
[1] http://newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
If you stop breathing, you die. If you stop fighting, you die.
Keep your head up my brother, and keep fighting the good fight. It's worth it.
Keep your head up my brother, and keep fighting the good fight. It's worth it.
> The enemies of the open internet only have to win once, but to fend them off we have to win every single time
I don't see why this is true. Why can't the competition go back and forth? And why must proponents of the open Internet play defense, instead of gaining ground and increasing openness and protections?
I don't see why this is true. Why can't the competition go back and forth? And why must proponents of the open Internet play defense, instead of gaining ground and increasing openness and protections?
Why not? Always keep up the fight.
you are a good hacker since you are good i'm going to call you "CODER 52" good job.
I don't understand why a basic "pay for what you use" principle is so evil while Facebook is a much bigger threat (worse than AOL in its day).
Does 'sama have a Facebook account?
Does 'sama have a Facebook account?
Sam Altman is the Ycombinator version of Steven Anthony Ballmer you can see failure on the horizon. Its just a matter of time.
What do you mean by this? Otherwise, this should be flagged.
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.
Things have changed fast; Google's lobbying spend has increased by over 50% since the SOPA blackout.
The technology industry serves the interests of capital/share-holders, not technologists.
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-18/outspendi...
EDIT: "Google hardly even had lobbyists back during the SOPA blackout." > "Google's lobbying spend has increased by over 50% since the SOPA blackout." h/t DannyBee below.