5 ms·

This is a clear violation of net neutrality principles, but it's also clearly a good thing for the Iraqi people. How do those in the hard-core NN tent square t

This is a clear violation of net neutrality principles, but it's also clearly a good thing for the Iraqi people. How do those in the hard-core NN tent square that circle? To sidestep any straw-man arguments about war zones, different country, etc; What if this were implemented in Appalachia to give access to wikipedia to the poor an uneducated there?

sharun 10y ago
Who cares? Why do you pay attention to hardcore supporters of anything? A hardcore supporter of Facebook or Google would say we could never run our sites like Wikipedia. Don't pay attention to them either.
jMyles 10y ago
The hardcore NN tent, at least on HN, isn't particularly hardcore, and especially not about NN. They are more hardcore (and, for that matter, more reasonable) about wanting to cripple (or in some cases "regulate") big communications providers who use their monopolies in the long-distance bus topology space to push their own media agenda. And NN happens to be a politically viable tool for that. But if you put it to a vote, a more anarchic internet (characterized by, inter alia, 1. wholly distributed naming and cert mechanisms, 2. final-mile mesh networking, 3. few or no blanket bans on low-power radio transmission, 4. the removal of politically-enshrined content bias from the application layer (ie, copyright law and software patents)) will, I think, win such a poll. The overwhelming majority here prefer that vision as a long-term plan, compared to barely-leashed telecoms restrained by a wink-wink-nudge-nudge "net neutrality." And so, the solution referred here, since it is pragmatic and reasonable, meets a sort of "for now" test of decency, whilst not being inconsistent with a soft, "best we can do" system of net neutrality for Comcast and Time Warner.
wtallis 10y ago
> but it's also clearly a good thing for the Iraqi people Wouldn't it be even better for the Iraqi people if they could also have affordable Internet access for the purposes of communicating and conducting commerce? Unless Wikimedia is footing the bill for the data usage, this is just a case of the telcos restructuring their pricing so that the lost profits of Wikimedia access are subsidized by the rest of the data usage. At least some of that other usage is probably more valuable to the Iraqi economy and general welfare (especially in the near term) than reading Wikipedia, even if it is less idealistic sounding.
- srssays 10y ago
  The two are not mutually exclusive. If the marketplace is competitive, then ISPs are incentivised to both offer freebies and to make their services affordable. The problems with the United States are the large area to cover, combined with a relatively uncompetitive market, and the predominance of post-paid contracts. But you can't generalise this to the rest of the world.
  - wtallis 10y ago
    > The problems with the United States are the large area to cover, That argument is never valid. Parts of the US may present a challenge due to low density, but the overall geographical size is not a determining factor for anything relating to internet infrastructure.
AndyMcConachie 10y ago
NN is about preventing one competitor from getting an unfair advantage. So unless you view Wikimedia as having a competitor, or some future potential competitor, this doesn't really violate any NN principles. In essence, if we're all OK with Wikimedia having a monopoly on what it is that Wikimedia does then there is no problem. Going back to the roots of the ICC(predecessor to the FCC) trains could carry USPS mail at different rates than other cargo. The USPS had a government sponsored monopoly on mail delivery. However, rate discrimination between similar cargo from different parties was prohibited. This is the basis for our concept of common carriers and NN.
- woah 10y ago
  NN is a pretty loosey-goosey principle that mostly just means "I don't like Comcast". There's also some partisan political football mixed in, and in the EFF's case, sizable donations from content providers like Google who want to preserve a strong bargaining position when buying bandwidth.
  - popey456963 10y ago
    You realise there are other countries other than the US in the world, right? I know that the above comment gives an example in the US, but: > mostly just means "I don't like Comcast" Is totally _not_ the meaning of net neutrality.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    Not merely "I don't like Comcast", though I (and a huge portion of their customers) really don't like Comcast. It is the very high potential, one might even say certainty, that if given the opportunity to hobble their competitors in the entertainment space and to give themselves a massive advantage, they will do so. The telcos and cable operators in the US have never been anything but monopoly or duopoly players. They don't know how to compete on any other field. If they are given the gun with which to shoot Netflix (for example) in the head (or demand ransoms that only major players can pay), they will likely pull the trigger the same day. So, no. It's not about disliking Comcast, it is about knowing with confidence that the internet will be harmed, maybe drastically, by giving Comcast (and a few others who play according the same rules) the ability to do so.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
Isn't net neutrality bigger issue is things like Netflix paying Comcast to be in their unmetered section - with the very real fear that small websites will get ignored? I don't put this on the same scale. I'd seriously not mind actual educational websites to be exempt from data charges - and this would include (but not be limited to) Wikipedia. I understand this would have a few flaws and arguements, but it is a start. I'd happily add in direct mostly text-based communication as well (Messenger for facebook but not the pages, hangouts, and the like).
- djrogers 10y ago
  How do you draw the distinction between permissible zero-rating and non-permissible zero-rating?
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    This is full of holes, but I'll take a stab at this answer. First, the obvious straightforward sort of information. Wikipedia, for example. Medical advice and self-care, including text-heavy information on cooking, car and machine repair, and so on. Math, science, programming, parenting, history. Primary or secondary language learning and improvment. Anything that actually teaches you a skill (yes, this will be abused to a point, but I'm willing to allow folks to learn to juggle if others can learn to practical skills). Things like religious texts becomes a tricky area. I think it is good for society when folks learn about different philosophies and religions. Yet these would paid, as well as a lot of the grey area stuff because you gotta draw the line somewhere. Many books fall into this category, even old classics, because most books are intended for entertainment. Some things would depend on context. For example, meditation. In a religious context, no. In a psychology, science, or medical context? stick it in there. Social media is a paid product. Sometimes the cut-off won't make sense: Learning musical instruments would be free, but listening to them paid. In addition, the site itself would have to take action to be included. If they don't apply to be exempt or to renew exemption, folks must pay for the content.
- gpawl 10y ago
  If Netflix just pays for bandwidth, that's net neutrality. If Comcast discriminates pricing based on anything besides byte delivery cost, that's not neutrality.
tn13 10y ago
Net neutrality was a bogus hocus-pocus in my opinion to begin with. Good for Iraq but bad for us ? How and why ? The underlying principles seems completely arbitrary. People should be able to get more access for lesser price and that is always a desirable thing.

sharun 10y ago

Who cares? Why do you pay attention to hardcore supporters of anything? A hardcore supporter of Facebook or Google would say we could never run our sites like Wikipedia. Don't pay attention to them either.

jMyles 10y ago

The hardcore NN tent, at least on HN, isn't particularly hardcore, and especially not about NN. They are more hardcore (and, for that matter, more reasonable) about wanting to cripple (or in some cases "regulate") big communications providers who use their monopolies in the long-distance bus topology space to push their own media agenda. And NN happens to be a politically viable tool for that. But if you put it to a vote, a more anarchic internet (characterized by, inter alia, 1. wholly distributed naming and cert mechanisms, 2. final-mile mesh networking, 3. few or no blanket bans on low-power radio transmission, 4. the removal of politically-enshrined content bias from the application layer (ie, copyright law and software patents)) will, I think, win such a poll. The overwhelming majority here prefer that vision as a long-term plan, compared to barely-leashed telecoms restrained by a wink-wink-nudge-nudge "net neutrality." And so, the solution referred here, since it is pragmatic and reasonable, meets a sort of "for now" test of decency, whilst not being inconsistent with a soft, "best we can do" system of net neutrality for Comcast and Time Warner.

wtallis 10y ago

> but it's also clearly a good thing for the Iraqi people Wouldn't it be even better for the Iraqi people if they could also have affordable Internet access for the purposes of communicating and conducting commerce? Unless Wikimedia is footing the bill for the data usage, this is just a case of the telcos restructuring their pricing so that the lost profits of Wikimedia access are subsidized by the rest of the data usage. At least some of that other usage is probably more valuable to the Iraqi economy and general welfare (especially in the near term) than reading Wikipedia, even if it is less idealistic sounding.

srssays 10y ago
The two are not mutually exclusive. If the marketplace is competitive, then ISPs are incentivised to both offer freebies and to make their services affordable. The problems with the United States are the large area to cover, combined with a relatively uncompetitive market, and the predominance of post-paid contracts. But you can't generalise this to the rest of the world.
- wtallis 10y ago
  > The problems with the United States are the large area to cover, That argument is never valid. Parts of the US may present a challenge due to low density, but the overall geographical size is not a determining factor for anything relating to internet infrastructure.

AndyMcConachie 10y ago

NN is about preventing one competitor from getting an unfair advantage. So unless you view Wikimedia as having a competitor, or some future potential competitor, this doesn't really violate any NN principles. In essence, if we're all OK with Wikimedia having a monopoly on what it is that Wikimedia does then there is no problem. Going back to the roots of the ICC(predecessor to the FCC) trains could carry USPS mail at different rates than other cargo. The USPS had a government sponsored monopoly on mail delivery. However, rate discrimination between similar cargo from different parties was prohibited. This is the basis for our concept of common carriers and NN.

woah 10y ago
NN is a pretty loosey-goosey principle that mostly just means "I don't like Comcast". There's also some partisan political football mixed in, and in the EFF's case, sizable donations from content providers like Google who want to preserve a strong bargaining position when buying bandwidth.
- popey456963 10y ago
  You realise there are other countries other than the US in the world, right? I know that the above comment gives an example in the US, but: > mostly just means "I don't like Comcast" Is totally _not_ the meaning of net neutrality.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  Not merely "I don't like Comcast", though I (and a huge portion of their customers) really don't like Comcast. It is the very high potential, one might even say certainty, that if given the opportunity to hobble their competitors in the entertainment space and to give themselves a massive advantage, they will do so. The telcos and cable operators in the US have never been anything but monopoly or duopoly players. They don't know how to compete on any other field. If they are given the gun with which to shoot Netflix (for example) in the head (or demand ransoms that only major players can pay), they will likely pull the trigger the same day. So, no. It's not about disliking Comcast, it is about knowing with confidence that the internet will be harmed, maybe drastically, by giving Comcast (and a few others who play according the same rules) the ability to do so.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

Isn't net neutrality bigger issue is things like Netflix paying Comcast to be in their unmetered section - with the very real fear that small websites will get ignored? I don't put this on the same scale. I'd seriously not mind actual educational websites to be exempt from data charges - and this would include (but not be limited to) Wikipedia. I understand this would have a few flaws and arguements, but it is a start. I'd happily add in direct mostly text-based communication as well (Messenger for facebook but not the pages, hangouts, and the like).

djrogers 10y ago
How do you draw the distinction between permissible zero-rating and non-permissible zero-rating?
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  This is full of holes, but I'll take a stab at this answer. First, the obvious straightforward sort of information. Wikipedia, for example. Medical advice and self-care, including text-heavy information on cooking, car and machine repair, and so on. Math, science, programming, parenting, history. Primary or secondary language learning and improvment. Anything that actually teaches you a skill (yes, this will be abused to a point, but I'm willing to allow folks to learn to juggle if others can learn to practical skills). Things like religious texts becomes a tricky area. I think it is good for society when folks learn about different philosophies and religions. Yet these would paid, as well as a lot of the grey area stuff because you gotta draw the line somewhere. Many books fall into this category, even old classics, because most books are intended for entertainment. Some things would depend on context. For example, meditation. In a religious context, no. In a psychology, science, or medical context? stick it in there. Social media is a paid product. Sometimes the cut-off won't make sense: Learning musical instruments would be free, but listening to them paid. In addition, the site itself would have to take action to be included. If they don't apply to be exempt or to renew exemption, folks must pay for the content.
gpawl 10y ago
If Netflix just pays for bandwidth, that's net neutrality. If Comcast discriminates pricing based on anything besides byte delivery cost, that's not neutrality.

tn13 10y ago

Net neutrality was a bogus hocus-pocus in my opinion to begin with. Good for Iraq but bad for us ? How and why ? The underlying principles seems completely arbitrary. People should be able to get more access for lesser price and that is always a desirable thing.