Ask HN: Is net neutrality overblown?
47 comments
The outrage is enormous because the public comment period involved massive identity theft and fake comments. The position of the corruption of the comments matched the minority position. That position was echoed in the FCC. Then the guy goes on to crack jokes about how he is doing it for Verizon. Literally cracks jokes. On a stage. In front of an audience. Like corruption is now comedy.
Am I the only one concerned at the "Push button to win vote with spambots" approach that affected both the US presidential election and Net Neutrality? That combined with the millions spent in bribes feels so much like our government is based on voting by bribe dollars, instead of, you know, the citizens who live there.
> Like corruption is now comedy
Yes, sad but true. The President set the precedence.
Yes, sad but true. The President set the precedence.
While Trump is a new level of overt, blatant corruption, joking about it is not his invention. Anyone remember Bush joking at the Press Correspondent's Dinner about those pesky missing WMDs?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA
https://youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA
I'm not really qualified to speak on this, but the most annoying part about this is it seems like a new discussion every 6 months. It's like asking your roommate to not set fire to the kitchen, but every half hour you have to go stop them from doing it... at some point it almost feels easier to just have the kitchen on fire than to continually worry about the kitchen being on fire.
I assume that I'm not alone in this feeling.
I assume that I'm not alone in this feeling.
One solution is to kick out your roommate. The other solution is to fireproof your whole kitchen (encrypt the whole web for start).
Yet another solution is to have a through vetting process so you don't bring this kind of roommate into your home and kitchen in the 1st place.
But what if you don't have a choice and the building manager just appoints your roommate. We need to kick out the building manager.
But the building manager is elected by a relatively small percentage of tenants who live in buildings that just happen to have a roughly even balance of Republicans and Democrats.
Like anything, things like this can have the potential to be the first step is a very slippery slope that erodes what makes the internet great.
The one positive i can see about this is that it might make the general public more aware of what net neutrality is, and hopefully thus reverse this and put in a strong law bolstering it.
I also think that the way that Trump has acted in such a radical manner during his presidency ensures the next guy in the chair will hopefully be the opposite, but then, i really thought Trump becoming President in the first place was extremely unlikely.
The one positive i can see about this is that it might make the general public more aware of what net neutrality is, and hopefully thus reverse this and put in a strong law bolstering it.
I also think that the way that Trump has acted in such a radical manner during his presidency ensures the next guy in the chair will hopefully be the opposite, but then, i really thought Trump becoming President in the first place was extremely unlikely.
Let's imagine that some form of shaking down service/content providers in order to achieve certain speeds/priorities becomes some established part of the landscape before the FCC or Congress changes hands again.
If, when that happens, the decision is made that this is not an acceptable state of affairs, it will then look and feel to the ISPs like not a potential way of extracting rent, but a lost revenue stream. They'll yell loudly about lost revenue stream and tell everybody how they will have to charge consumers more in order to make up for it. They'll shout about how the government is taxing the internet. They'll go to court and see if the lost revenue gives them a better case under the law.
And because it'll be the status quo -- but one in which most of the rents they're extracting are invisible to consumers -- they'll be more successful at persuading people than they already have been.
If, when that happens, the decision is made that this is not an acceptable state of affairs, it will then look and feel to the ISPs like not a potential way of extracting rent, but a lost revenue stream. They'll yell loudly about lost revenue stream and tell everybody how they will have to charge consumers more in order to make up for it. They'll shout about how the government is taxing the internet. They'll go to court and see if the lost revenue gives them a better case under the law.
And because it'll be the status quo -- but one in which most of the rents they're extracting are invisible to consumers -- they'll be more successful at persuading people than they already have been.
I wonder if it will have an impact at all.
They say big websites will pay for fast delivery and small websites will have their data delivered slower.
I have a small website. I already pay for bandwith. What will change? Will I be charged more for fast bandwith?
They say big websites will pay for fast delivery and small websites will have their data delivered slower.
I have a small website. I already pay for bandwith. What will change? Will I be charged more for fast bandwith?
That’s what most people fear right now. It would potentially make it harder for new companies to compete with giants as they will not be able to pay the premium required to provide an equally fast service.
But how is that different to any other resource? In the same vein you could say new companies cannot pay the premium for fast servers, big databases, expensive marketing, top talent...
So, it sounds like your argument is that because life sucks for new companies in some ways, it's OK if we make it suck for them in all ways.
Should the same go for people? Are you looking forward to possibly seeing ISPs nickel-and-dime you to death, e.g. with "packaged internets" products that limit the sites you can visit based on how much you pay? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15934044
Should the same go for people? Are you looking forward to possibly seeing ISPs nickel-and-dime you to death, e.g. with "packaged internets" products that limit the sites you can visit based on how much you pay? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15934044
I don't believe we'll actually see it on wireline internet service. And it's already legal on mobile in the US, but we don't see it because it becomes more uneconomical as connection speed gets faster.
Because Netflix has to pay for their fast server, their fast internet, and now they also have to pay for my fast internet while I'm already paying for my fast internet.
If you have a small website, you probably don't need "fast bandwidth" in the first place. Are you hosting streaming video and the like?
ISPs may prioritize traffic for services like Netflix to reduce latency for their services. Yes, this may mean traffic for standard text-and-graphics web sites get slowed down a bit, but latency on those kinds of sites do not degrade the user experience as latency on streaming video.
(I remember when the Sega Dreamcast launched, Sega also launched an ISP which somehow prioritized Dreamcast game traffic so that your online Dreamcast games had less theoretical latency. I suppose "gamer ISPs" could become a thing again too.)
ISPs may prioritize traffic for services like Netflix to reduce latency for their services. Yes, this may mean traffic for standard text-and-graphics web sites get slowed down a bit, but latency on those kinds of sites do not degrade the user experience as latency on streaming video.
(I remember when the Sega Dreamcast launched, Sega also launched an ISP which somehow prioritized Dreamcast game traffic so that your online Dreamcast games had less theoretical latency. I suppose "gamer ISPs" could become a thing again too.)
No.
Allowing ISPs to charge customers more for the same service is not overblown. Basically it boils down to a trust issue, like the React World debacle, except these ISPs have already had horrible breaches of that trust.
> - This will be easy to fix when Trump is replaced
This has much less to do with the president and much more to do with corporate bribes. See here: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp... Please note that there are no limits on how many terms Congress members may seve and that voting turn-out for non-presidential elections is quite low.
> - Comcast would be unwise to radically change the status quo when things will likely be "reverted again" in 3 years
Incorrect on both fronts -
ISPs stand to acquire direct profit for no additional cost, basically free money. This is because many ISPs have been caught throttling already, which means that they already have that technology built and ready to go.
Comcast specifically already has many technologies they can turn on and off as quickly as a phone call to change your service plan.
> - Internet companies (and techies) will call out bad behavior on the part of broadband providers if it occurs in practice
Sure, but with far less reach and effectiveness and an eventual decade-long tie up in courts. It's really less than a wrist slap to these large ISPs
> - This is a nuanced issue; regulating monopolies and utilities isn't easy
It's not nuanced, but yes, regulating companies and utilities isn't easy. But I just don't see how giving them permission to charge customers more money for the same service is going to help any of these mentioned issues.
This is a perfect example of misinformation used to confuse and pacify the masses - see how none of these arguments are related?
You have to understand that right now these ISPs have a near complete monopoly over most areas and have relaxed to the point that other companies, such as Google Fiber, can offer x100 times the speed at half the price or less.
Allowing ISPs to charge customers more for the same service is not overblown. Basically it boils down to a trust issue, like the React World debacle, except these ISPs have already had horrible breaches of that trust.
> - This will be easy to fix when Trump is replaced
This has much less to do with the president and much more to do with corporate bribes. See here: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp... Please note that there are no limits on how many terms Congress members may seve and that voting turn-out for non-presidential elections is quite low.
> - Comcast would be unwise to radically change the status quo when things will likely be "reverted again" in 3 years
Incorrect on both fronts -
ISPs stand to acquire direct profit for no additional cost, basically free money. This is because many ISPs have been caught throttling already, which means that they already have that technology built and ready to go.
Comcast specifically already has many technologies they can turn on and off as quickly as a phone call to change your service plan.
> - Internet companies (and techies) will call out bad behavior on the part of broadband providers if it occurs in practice
Sure, but with far less reach and effectiveness and an eventual decade-long tie up in courts. It's really less than a wrist slap to these large ISPs
> - This is a nuanced issue; regulating monopolies and utilities isn't easy
It's not nuanced, but yes, regulating companies and utilities isn't easy. But I just don't see how giving them permission to charge customers more money for the same service is going to help any of these mentioned issues.
This is a perfect example of misinformation used to confuse and pacify the masses - see how none of these arguments are related?
You have to understand that right now these ISPs have a near complete monopoly over most areas and have relaxed to the point that other companies, such as Google Fiber, can offer x100 times the speed at half the price or less.
>> This will be easy to fix when Trump is replaced
I think it will be entrenched by then. Wasn't it narrowly defeated under Obama (remember when all the sites went black at once)?
Serious (perhaps dumb) question, can the end of NN really be fixed with encryption?
My intuition says no, because China seems really good at blocking everything
I think it will be entrenched by then. Wasn't it narrowly defeated under Obama (remember when all the sites went black at once)?
Serious (perhaps dumb) question, can the end of NN really be fixed with encryption?
My intuition says no, because China seems really good at blocking everything
I also think it will be entrenched by then.
> Serious (perhaps dumb) question, can the end of NN really be fixed with encryption?
I have some hope for a decentralized private internet like this one https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/15/pied-pipers-decentralized-... but I would see it as more of an enthusiast's space as this internet wouldn't be able to compete with the size of the current internet.
> Serious (perhaps dumb) question, can the end of NN really be fixed with encryption?
I have some hope for a decentralized private internet like this one https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/15/pied-pipers-decentralized-... but I would see it as more of an enthusiast's space as this internet wouldn't be able to compete with the size of the current internet.
Speaking of decentralized (but not private), I recently learned about some EOS 'coin'... Brock Pierce states he's raised multiple billions to deliver a high speed ETH competitor...
I find everything about it hard to believe (I own no EOS), but I'm watching it with much curiosity
I find everything about it hard to believe (I own no EOS), but I'm watching it with much curiosity
I'm not surprised he's raised millions. (1) One of the best/easiest/most guaranteed places to make money is by investing in money/stocks/etc. ("You have to have money to make money") And (2) Actually, startup funders have a surprising amount of cash and they'll throw it on any horse that looks to win the race. From a civilian and from a startuper's perspective, gaining startup funding is like winning the lottery but from the other side of the table, really, it's just another investment, and they are looking to secure a healthy profit.
IMO I feel that the crypotcurrency market reached its saturation point a long time ago and that while technological advances are nice and new competitors are always healthy, the winners of this game have been determined a long time ago and will remain so as there continue to be new cryptocurrencies to the point of super-saturation.
IMO I feel that the crypotcurrency market reached its saturation point a long time ago and that while technological advances are nice and new competitors are always healthy, the winners of this game have been determined a long time ago and will remain so as there continue to be new cryptocurrencies to the point of super-saturation.
The internet is seen by many to be a vehicle of freedom of speech, and even a basic human right. The outcry on NN is likely an pushback on the principle that it sets a dangerous precedent of privatizing a public service.
Truthfully I'm outraged about a lot of things lately, but the reason I care so much about net neutrality is because for me it's become nearly synonymous with freedom of speech. News organizations barely print newspapers anymore it's all online, magazines likewise. If you allow for the blocking or throttling(which kills it nearly the same) of information it creates a potential method of abuse.
I believe that a democratic society, even a democratic republic such as ours will lose the voice of the people when we lose net neutrality. I'm not sure democracy can survive without a freedom of speech that can be heard.
This is the front lines of our defense for democracy. Other issues are important sure but I have little faith in our ability to solve them if this is broken. So much of our government is already broken, without the means to communicate, to spread information and to let our voices be heard, it can only get worse.
I think the ISP's won't act out too strongly too soon, as there would be riots and also there is a lawsuit to see if the fcc was even allowed to do what it did, I think they will wait to see the courts ruling, and if it goes in their favor then the big changes will come.
I believe that a democratic society, even a democratic republic such as ours will lose the voice of the people when we lose net neutrality. I'm not sure democracy can survive without a freedom of speech that can be heard.
This is the front lines of our defense for democracy. Other issues are important sure but I have little faith in our ability to solve them if this is broken. So much of our government is already broken, without the means to communicate, to spread information and to let our voices be heard, it can only get worse.
I think the ISP's won't act out too strongly too soon, as there would be riots and also there is a lawsuit to see if the fcc was even allowed to do what it did, I think they will wait to see the courts ruling, and if it goes in their favor then the big changes will come.
The "outrage" is the people making their voice known. If there were no outrage at all, our politicians would take that as us not caring, and thus have the freedom to listen to the big companies without repercussions. Now that we've made it clear where our stance is, both politicians and big companies will be more cautious about their actions.
> I'm surprised that this issue causes such outrage when I see bigger issues that could arguably cause much worse effects
This happens all the time; it's an unfortunate state of the world. But we shouldn't disregard important issues just because there are even bigger issues.
> I'm surprised that this issue causes such outrage when I see bigger issues that could arguably cause much worse effects
This happens all the time; it's an unfortunate state of the world. But we shouldn't disregard important issues just because there are even bigger issues.
The problem is this has become a battle of laws. Before it was just FCC regulations, however these anti neutrality regulations that were voted on yesterday are being pushed to become law. It adds more hurdles to the process.
Yes it's overblown. You can expect that to happen with any political argument.
But I still haven't been able to find any convincing argument to give these monopolies the ability to make people's internet worse in subtle ways. I expect the actual effects of getting rid of net neutrality will be buffering problems, more expensive internet services like Netflix, and small annoyances that won't bother non-technical people.
But I still haven't been able to find any convincing argument to give these monopolies the ability to make people's internet worse in subtle ways. I expect the actual effects of getting rid of net neutrality will be buffering problems, more expensive internet services like Netflix, and small annoyances that won't bother non-technical people.
I'm new here; I was expecting to see a page full of comments addressing your final question, "Where is the outrage about that?" But no-one mentioned it at all! Well, I guess that answers that question. (Although raises a few more.)
Yes.
You'll see supporters clamor that "internet access is a human right", yet unironically defend that speech should be regulated on the internet.
You'll see supporters clamor that "internet access is a human right", yet unironically defend that speech should be regulated on the internet.
Any links to who wants both?
Sounds like apples and oranges, because I can understand some may want high-speed free/low-cost internet for all while advocating penalties to those that hurl hate speech online.
Sounds like apples and oranges, because I can understand some may want high-speed free/low-cost internet for all while advocating penalties to those that hurl hate speech online.
Many of these supporters I don't see defending the regulation of speech on the net by government, but by the public putting pressure on private entities, which is a different matter altogether.
Maybe I've missed it but I have not seen much in the way of NN supporters wanting government regulation of speech on the web.
Maybe I've missed it but I have not seen much in the way of NN supporters wanting government regulation of speech on the web.
Yes. So tired of hearing about this story as if it were the end of the world in tech circles - ones that would normally be opposed to increased regulation of the internet.
I predict this whole thing will be a nothingburger, and in a year there will be no major ISPs seriously trying to sell "Netflix/YouTube packages" or the like. If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow, but I seriously doubt it.
I predict this whole thing will be a nothingburger, and in a year there will be no major ISPs seriously trying to sell "Netflix/YouTube packages" or the like. If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow, but I seriously doubt it.
It's more because the ISP can now charge tolls in both directions, so prices for streaming services will hike up.
This effectively allows the ISP to sell their one pipe to the internet twice. They can go to YouTube and Netflix and say, "You haven't paid us to send your content down your pipes." Meanwhile saying to the consumer "You need to pay us so you can get access to the internet."
So, some ISP's will still allow access to the internet. While others will allow access, to what I call, the interNOT.
Edited to add:
I suspect that someday someone will come up with some legislation that says if you don't have access to the full internet, then an ISP can't call it "internet service". Because it's not.
This effectively allows the ISP to sell their one pipe to the internet twice. They can go to YouTube and Netflix and say, "You haven't paid us to send your content down your pipes." Meanwhile saying to the consumer "You need to pay us so you can get access to the internet."
So, some ISP's will still allow access to the internet. While others will allow access, to what I call, the interNOT.
Edited to add:
I suspect that someday someone will come up with some legislation that says if you don't have access to the full internet, then an ISP can't call it "internet service". Because it's not.
First ISPs with content arms like cable tv will throttle internet tv providers and movie providers. Second they will ask for a cut of googles and facebooks ad revenues.
Already exists via FTC regulation. It's why mobile data isn't sold as internet access.
You are mistaken. These types of packages are already visible around the world, here's one from Indonesia: https://imgur.com/gallery/nKZ2yeq
The business model is already proven, the American ISPs just need to copy it. It would not surprise me to know that they have systems and plans hiding in the wings.
The business model is already proven, the American ISPs just need to copy it. It would not surprise me to know that they have systems and plans hiding in the wings.
Hypotheticals do not make me mistaken.
The poster is not necessarily mistaken even if I think they are.
After Google, Facebook, Twitter et al un-personed people for their beliefs, my trust in them declined a great deal.
Thus when these same corporations yelled about "Net Neutrality" I was left wondering what the real deal was.
Thus when these same corporations yelled about "Net Neutrality" I was left wondering what the real deal was.
The only regulation we need on the internet is congestion control. The culprits of this issue so far aside malicious botnets DDOSing seem to be corporations like Comcast and Spectrum overselling their nodes and causing an intermittent denial of service to everyone using it. Maybe multiregional corporations do some of it themselves as well.
There should not ever be restriction to access or price for data.
There should not ever be restriction to access or price for data.
While maybe a bit poorly described, this isn’t wrong and touches on the underlying truth. The #1 complaint everyone has on their ‘internet’ is directly related to contention ratio and it’s associated monetary value (which often is not understood by consumers).
I run a regional ISP (CTO). Boiled down, we compete almost solely on network contention ratio and the resulting price per Mbps to the consumer.
I run a regional ISP (CTO). Boiled down, we compete almost solely on network contention ratio and the resulting price per Mbps to the consumer.
My read of the issue was that:
- This will be easy to fix when Trump is replaced
- Comcast would be unwise to radically change the status quo when things will likely be "reverted again" in 3 years
- Internet companies (and techies) will call out bad behavior on the part of broadband providers if it occurs in practice
- This is a nuanced issue; regulating monopolies and utilities isn't easy
Basically, I see this as a temporary reversion, unlikely to have longer term effects. Yet the outrage is enormous.
I'm surprised that this issue causes such outrage when I see bigger issues that could arguably cause much worse effects - like the essential dismantling of the EPA and environmental protections, which could cause a "tipping point" in climate change which we may not be able to revert and which will have worldwide consequences. Where is the outrage about that?