5 ms·

> "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 t

by guelo 10y ago

> "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?

bifrost 10y ago
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.
- guelo 10y ago
  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.
  - MarkSummer 10y ago
    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?
    - thatcat 10y ago
      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.
      - MarkSummer 10y ago
        Here's a 'mostly wireless' open/neutral network that seems to be scaling: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guifi.net https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guifi.net
- rhcom2 10y ago
  > "lets force carriers to do things because we don't understand how it works" Are you suggesting pro-NN people don't understand how it works? This is a strange summary of NN to me.
  - woah 10y ago
    What do you think about YouTube and Facebook's edge servers?
- awful 10y ago
  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.
- ch33zer 10y ago
  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-and-netflix-reach-a-streaming-agreement.html?_r=0 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.
- intended 10y ago
  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.
  - ChefDenominator 10y ago
    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?
    - intended 10y ago
      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.
      - ChefDenominator 10y ago
        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.
        deleted 10y ago
wonder_er 10y ago
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?
- freeone3000 10y ago
  They have fewer resources and are easier to ignore.
  - none_for_me_thx 10y ago
    I encourage you to ignore the IRS, then. Or, hey, even the FCC.
  - wonder_er 10y ago
    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/regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/files/downloads/Pages_CFR_0.JPG https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/regulatory...
- guelo 10y ago
  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.

by guelo 10y ago

bifrost 10y ago

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.

guelo 10y ago
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.
- MarkSummer 10y ago
  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?
  - thatcat 10y ago
    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.
    - MarkSummer 10y ago
      Here's a 'mostly wireless' open/neutral network that seems to be scaling: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guifi.net https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guifi.net
rhcom2 10y ago
> "lets force carriers to do things because we don't understand how it works" Are you suggesting pro-NN people don't understand how it works? This is a strange summary of NN to me.
- woah 10y ago
  What do you think about YouTube and Facebook's edge servers?
awful 10y ago
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.
ch33zer 10y ago
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-and-netflix-reach-a-streaming-agreement.html?_r=0 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.
intended 10y ago
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.
- ChefDenominator 10y ago
  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?
  - intended 10y ago
    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.
    - ChefDenominator 10y ago
      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.
      - deleted 10y ago

wonder_er 10y ago

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?

freeone3000 10y ago
They have fewer resources and are easier to ignore.
- none_for_me_thx 10y ago
  I encourage you to ignore the IRS, then. Or, hey, even the FCC.
- wonder_er 10y ago
  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/regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/files/downloads/Pages_CFR_0.JPG https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/regulatory...
guelo 10y ago
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.