16 ms·

The Invisible War for the Open Internet

322 points by bootload 9y ago

roesel 9y ago
This is insanely wordy. I would appreciate a TL;DR;
- _nalply 9y ago
  Each communication technology tends to cycle through phases: Invention, pioneering, commercialisation, lock-down and obsolescence: telegram, telephone, radio, cinema, TV, etc. Internet is in the lock-down phase if net neutrality is not enforced. Without net neutrality providers can split the Internet into channels and make bundles out of channels, like this: Base Internet $29.95 plus International sites $5 plus news $5, and so on. This way they can make more money. However this will force out the long tail (niche content) and force us into walled gardens and in the future even get us an Internet as locked-down as China's. This is not capitalism, but corporatism. We should fight the lock-down by donating to specific non-profits, educate about the open Internet, contact representatives and share the article. Perhaps one should make a tl;dr out of this?
  - louithethrid 9y ago
    TL;DR now costs extra, because im some important pipe-part of the thread stack, and demand money to squeeze it down further.
  - losteric 9y ago
    tl;dr: Rent-seeking edit: seriously though, read the article... it's not long
- gumby 9y ago
  It's only about 8,000 words. Long by Buzzfeed standards, short by The New York Review of books.
- bootload 9y ago
  "This is insanely wordy. I would appreciate a TL;DR;" Start here: "How to Read a Paper" ~ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14228912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14228912 Is it that hard to read the title and the first 100 words. In papers this is usually the abstract. If you can't find the meaning inside the first one hundred or so words it is waffle and may not be worth reading. Here is a hint. Network neutrality, enshrined in law, is under attack by large ISP companies for control and profit. There are precedents in our technology history. Tech companies are not run by benevolent skivvied, sandal wearing hippies, who hang around the Dalai Lama in their spare time to be enlightened. If you disagree with my editorialising, that's what happens if you ask someone else to re-interpret the story. Read the entire article instead.
- endgame 9y ago
  It's also well written and rolls along at a decent pace.
ohthehugemanate 9y ago
I like the irony that this well researched and thought out article is published on medium.
- niftich 9y ago
  There is no irony here. Today, with net neutrality, the author can choose to publish on Medium, where some publishers and readers congregate for particular types of content, and anyone on the Internet who wants to read Medium can, without having to buy into a price-discriminated tier to escape beyond the home-turf vertical. In the future, will you be able to say the same?
  - nebabyte 9y ago
    There absolutely is. Medium is in that "one of X top sites" while blogs would be in the long tail. "Without having to buy X" just means you've yet learned nothing of the past. "Without having to buy" is just internet.org and (potentially, ultimately) a good tagline for trial subscriptions of zero rated content. It's not the money (or "free" gratis) that matters, it's the control (or "free" libre). People continuing to fundamentally not understand the rationale of controlling your own tech will be the single biggest contributor to "efforts to save the internet" failing, if you ask me.
    - niftich 9y ago
      Due to network effects and the 'discovery' problem, content on the Web will likely continue to need content silos and content aggregators to expand reach. This alone isn't a problem -- or maybe it is, depending on your point-of-view, but isn't equivalent to the issues raised in the parent post. Equal access to pipes regardless of the nature of transmitted content -- net neutrality, or as you phrase, the libre aspect is a necessary prerequisite for mass-market and indie content to both have a chance to thrive -- and not just your home ISP's preferred partners. I get what you're saying, but both of them matter: the point is to get the same playing field, and not sidestep it with either a lower or higher price -- either zero-rating, or by charging more for a broader range of access.
- 9y ago
quincyla 9y ago
Author here. I just realized someone had submitted this to HN. I spent a lot of time researching and writing this article, and am excited to read any feedback you may have. Also, here's how you can contact the FCC directly: 1-888-225-5322 press 1, then 4, then 2, then 0 say that you wish to file comments concerning the FCC Chairman’s plan to end net neutrality Or on the web: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express Under Proceedings, enter 14-28 and 17-108 Suggested script: It's my understanding that the FCC Chairman intends to reverse net neutrality rules and put big Internet Service Providers in charge of the internet. I am firmly against this action. I believe that these ISPs will operate solely in their own interests and not in the interests of what is best for the American public. In the past 10 years, broadband companies have been guilty of: deliberately throttling internet traffic, squeezing customers with arbitrary data caps, misleading consumers about the meaning of “unlimited” internet, giving privileged treatment to companies they own, strong-arming cities to prevent them from giving their residents high-speed internet, and avoiding real competition at all costs. Consumers, small businesses, and all Americans deserve an open internet. So to restate my position: I am against the chairman's plan to reverse the net neutrality rules. I believe doing so will destroy a vital engine for innovation, growth, and communication. This information is taken from this thread on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6894i9/heres_how_to_contact_the_fcc_with_your_thoughts/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6894i9/heres_ho...
- bootload 9y ago
  " I just realised someone had submitted this to HN." I did, important and a good read. Trivial Q. What search term did you use on google to get show the paid adverts google inserts above "freecodecamp"? Was the term generic? I get this result (no adverts, many links to freecodecamp): https://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/34191703472 https://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/34191703472
  - quincyla 9y ago
    I just used the term "freecodecamp". I think they showed the ad based on geolocation.
bamboozled 9y ago
Maybe losing the current web wouldn't be that bad, it's largely become a centralised, tracking and surveillance tool for mass marketing and used for spying on citizens. One gets the feeling that any significant level of "openness" died a long time ago. It's not that it's useless, but a fresh start might not be the worst outcome.
- myowncrapulence 9y ago
  This is exactly why an entirely encrypted internet would be desirable. ISP's won't be able to track or throttle since they won't know who's connecting to what.
  - studentrob 9y ago
    That would stifle development in its own way. We haven't repealed net neutrality yet. Let's keep at it and see where this goes.
  - gregmac 9y ago
    Or your ISP would just MITM everything and provide their own CA you must accept to use their service.
  - topranks 9y ago
    It would need to be like TOR - if you just encrypted then they'd see who you were talking to, just not what you're saying.
- darkkindness 9y ago
  > a fresh start might not be the worst outcome. The article gave the implication of having a locked-down internet reminiscent of China's -- losing net neutrality doesn't necessarily mean losing this centralized, tracking and surveillance tool for mass marketing and spying. I would love to hear your definition of 'fresh start'.
  - nebabyte 9y ago
    I'm guessing they're holding out for a meshnet. Less realistically likely to be implemented at scale (and scale is what makes the internet as wonderful as it is) anytime soon than uber's moonshot of building their autonomous fleet in time tbh Also even if that is it it would solve nothing, [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14220269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14220269
studentrob 9y ago
How can we translate this for laypeople? This was my attempt, > Imagine your existing water utility divided its offerings into "regular water" and "super clean water". You'd think, wait, isn't my tap water already clean? And you'd be right. > Swap "regular water" for "faster internet to specific websites" and you get the lobbyists' argument for killing net neutrality. It would produce slow internet to websites that don't pay up, effectively allowing ISPs to earn money two times for the same product, and elbowing smaller content producers out of the internet Improvements welcome. I think it could be more succinct.
- theprop 9y ago
  Try this: imagine the government put up a fence in front of everyone's house and they let poor people in fine, but charged rich people to get in through the fence. That's the basic idea for ISPs...they want to charge Google, Facebook, etc. money. They're already charging Netflix (Verizon forced them to pay or they would throttle them). There is NO CHANCE that ISPs will actually invest in two technically different products like regular/super clean water! That's just how ISPs want paint the debate, that they want the right to invest in "better technology", but the bottleneck is the last mile and the chances that Verizon will lay 2 different cables to your house is exactly zero! The requirement for prejudicial packet routing to deliver things like HD video is a non-starter, Netflix when it's not getting throttled is already delivers great hi-def video in the current non-prejudicial packet-based internet. It is really pure "extortion"...at least in my view and a clear case of necessary government intervention to insure fair market behavior (e.g. ISPs can only charge consumers, not web services, for internet service).
  - studentrob 9y ago
    Thanks for your ideas! Points about bottleneck at the last mile and Verizon not offering to lay more cabling to your house are good I realize that ISPs want to paint the debate as separate products. I wanted to use their language in my description so that people can interpret their words alongside mine. If you're constantly making different points and not addressing your opponents', I feel the listener will walk away with a 50/50 chance of agreeing with you, probably choosing to follow their political party. If you offer some translation, maybe we can get some meaningful discussion about it. Regarding charging rich people to enter the fence. I feel that would only help convince the general public that net neutrality benefits big companies. Google and Facebook, forgive me if you work there, are teetering on not being perceived as evil mega corporations with access to all our data. Naming them as a victim doesn't do much to win over the public.
spectrum1234 9y ago
My main gripe with Net Neutrality is simple economics. For almost any good or service you can pay for different tiers of quality. Why should the internet not be this way too? If the answer is because its a monopoly I would have to disagree.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jkoll 9y ago
  Websites already pay for the internet connections their servers use...
- pdonis 9y ago
  There can still be tiers of quality under Net Neutrality. ISPs can still offer different levels of bandwidth to their customers for different prices. What they can't do under Net Neutrality is offer faster bandwidth for websites that pay up and slower bandwidth for websites that don't.
- H4CK3RM4N 9y ago
  You can pay for faster postage in the same way you can pay for a higherspeed connection. But, what ISPs are trying to do is make you pay for faster postage on letters printed on pink paper.
- wmf 9y ago
  What ISPs are doing goes far beyond different tiers of quality. Like TWC/Spectrum secretly intentionally congesting Netflix, then telling customers that upgrading to a faster plan will fix it (which it won't, because the customer's plan wasn't the bottleneck). Then TWC/Spectrum secretly stopped congesting Netflix after Netflix secretly paid them. Like AT&T/Verizon charging content providers to bypass caps, then probably secretly charging their own content provider much less than they charge other companies. In theory the FCC's "not my problem" policy may allow these cases to be solved by the FTC, but first the FTC would have to somehow find out that this stuff is going on.
- Spivak 9y ago
afriend4lyfe 9y ago
If the big ISPs started throttling data and putting up walled gardens, what would stop competitors from entering the market to offer the "net neutral" flavor of internet we're used to? Some communities are already banding together to start their own ISPs. I'm not familiar with how they deal with the "last mile" infrastructure challenge. But if it only took a big investment up front then that begs the question why did Google Fiber fail? Lack of community support? If net neutrality was as valuable to us as we make it out to be, then what would stop local grassroots efforts from installing their own community-based ISPs in response to losing it?
- studentrob 9y ago
  Good question. I wouldn't say Google fiber failed. They've paused expansion. Also, living overseas in Taiwan I get 50+ Mbps down/5 up for $4/month on a landline (cable), paid a year in advance, and in SE Asia you can get 3g Sims giving 5gb data for $10. Here I pay $6 for 1gb 3g per month, prepaid. Granted, Taiwan is much more urbanized so costs for this go down, but it begs the question what sort of stranglehold ISPs hold over urban America. Perhaps urban America is subsidizing rural America, and Google didn't want to play that game to its finish. Just a wild guess. Anyway, much too soon to call that product a failure, particularly since it is still active.
- niftich 9y ago
  > what would stop local grassroots efforts from installing their own community-based ISPs High meatspace costs (digging, permits), obstruction of easements by incumbents (like pole access [1][2]), and in 19 states, state laws [3], are some of the barriers to municipal broadband efforts in the US. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/att-explains-why-it-sometimes-delays-google-fiber-access-to-poles/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/att-e... [2] https://www.wired.com/2016/09/utility-poles-important-future-internet/ https://www.wired.com/2016/09/utility-poles-important-future... [3] https://muninetworks.org/communitymap https://muninetworks.org/communitymap
- rayiner 9y ago
  > Some communities are already banding together to start their own ISPs. I'm not familiar with how they deal with the "last mile" infrastructure challenge. But if it only took a big investment up front then that begs the question why did Google Fiber fail? Lack of community support? Google Fiber failed because Google doesn't care about fiber; they care about creating competition for ISPs to ensure continued access to its services. They realized they don't need fiber for that-5G technologies will be good enough to create competition for ISPs but can be deployed far more cheaply.
transposed 9y ago
“Those are some lovely data packets you’ve got there. It sure would be a shame if they got lost on their way to your users.” There were a lot of good quotes from the article, but this one struck me as particularly apt. I saw something on tumblr today about how "net neutrality" just doesn't resonate with people - and it's true - I tried striking up conversation about this and some people didn't even know what I was talking about.
- markdown 9y ago
  In my country, mobile service providers (Vodafone, Digicel, Connect) all have very popular packages like "Sign up for this data plan for $6 and get free unlimited access to Facebook and Instagram. Anyone trying to push net neutrality here would have a hard time getting the masses on board once told they'd have to give up "free" social media.
  - intended 9y ago
    Which country is this ?
    - markdown 9y ago
      Fiji
      - r3bl 9y ago
        ...and Serbia. And Bosnia. And Montenegro. And Croatia. And I'm like 70% certain that I've seen similar billboards in Poland as well a couple of months ago, but can't confirm it.
    - greenhatman 9y ago
      We have this in South Africa as well.
nebabyte 9y ago
> This isn’t capitalism — it’s corporatism. Capitalism is messy. It’s wasteful. But it’s much healthier in the long run for society as a whole than central planning and government trying to pick the winners. > Capitalism allows for small businesses to enter and actually stand a chance. Corporatism makes it impossible. What you're calling "corporatism" is simply "late stage capitalism". As long as you continue to buy into the delusion that your almoghty dollar will make you a multimillionaire someday, you empower those who have the actual machines of finance under lock and key to act as the new monarchs of your world.
- studentrob 9y ago
  You act like a full scale revolution is the only solution and that this would somehow redistribute wealth. I really doubt it. If done all at once, there'd be a power vacuum that someone would come into. I think we can support last-mile competition or regulation, and educate people about why net neutrality is important. That's our job as technologists.
  - loup-vaillant 9y ago
    > You act like a full scale revolution is the only solution and that this would somehow redistribute wealth. Where did that come from? I didn't read that in the above comment. Unless you have this idea that to get to socialism one has to undergo a bloody revolution? Nope. One just have to set up taxes properly and pump up public services.
    - studentrob 9y ago
      I inferred it from previous similar discussions about "late stage capitalism". "Late stage" implies people think we should get rid of capitalism soon. I don't see that happening. I don't want full-on communism / socialism , as it's been demonstrated to be a failed incentive for countries to both grow innovation and to defend themselves against the far-right-leaning societies in the world. Maybe once we're all connected and communicating more effectively, we can stop building armies. I don't think we're there yet.
DonbunEf7 9y ago
I have seen these five steps before, in a dream. They are chaos, discord, confusion, bureaucracy, and the aftermath. Discordians stand vindicated.
AndyMcConachie 9y ago
To be clear this is less about the Internet and more about the USA. I doubt Internet users in other countries should really care about net neutrality in the USA. If anything, once the FCC ruins the Internet for Americans other countries will take pride in being less like the USA and strengthening their net neutrality legislation. Similarly to how health care discourse in EU countries often cites the USA as the bad example to avoid.
75dvtwin 9y ago
I do not think anybody wants ISPs to be in charge of internet. However, I also believe, that most do not want USA FCC to be in charge of internet either. Arguing for a benefit, without clearly identifying the strategic negatives, is intellectually dishonest. Perhaps, it is with the help of these types of arguments, is how some monopolies and dictatorships are built out. Here is an example of the discussion analyzing some arguments of the validity of FCC reach: "This Comment argues that requiring ISPs to filter pirated material is within the FCC's ancillary jurisdiction pursuant to Title I of the Communications Act,'1 but only so long as the targeted activity has a detrimental impact on network activity." http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1436&context=uclf http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic... pp. 535-538 I would argue, that it is the power of consumer choice to obfuscate his/her usage of internet (and, protecting companies that help with that) -- should be the goal. Rather than, giving FCC the authority to regulate ISPs or consumer usage of the internet, via the ISPs. I do want to mention that I appreciated some (but not all) analogies used by the author. I liked this one especially. "Not only did Western Union back Hayes’ campaign financially, it also used its unique position as the information backbone for espionage purposes. " It reminded me, in just recent history, of how the previous (2008-2016) US president used US (and, probably, UK's) foreign intelligence services to target the opposition of his foreign policies, and the people's choice of the next president. I also liked the analogy of TV and facebook, I fully agree -- Facebook is working hard on creating a 'walled garden' of information dissemination, and digital identity of every individual. And they would love to cut out the 'amateur hobbyists'.
- Jaymoon85 9y ago
  I agree. Nobody is considering the problems an FCC-regulated internet brings to the table. With the exception of the telegram and cinema (those controlled by Western Union and Hollywood), the feds regulate the telephone, radio, and television. The internet is just the latest thing government bureaucrats want control over. > With the fate of a major Internet policy in the balance, Pai's proposal may lend momentum to U.S. lawmakers who have proposed replacing the current FCC rules with congressional legislation. Republican members of Congress have said they are ready to craft a bill that enshrines some of the existing regulations permanently into law. But that effort is expected to stall without support from Democrats, such as Sens. Edward J. Markey (Mass.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) who argue the FCC can and should regulate ISPs more heavily. [1] In regards to Facebook, Twitter, etc. creating their own modern walled gardens, let them. They'll soon see the demise that others have, 10-20 years ago. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/04/26/heres-the-fccs-plan-to-undo-its-own-net-neutrality-rules/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/04/26...
hartator 9y ago
I am for paying a neutral gateway to Internet. However, I don't get why we should forbid Facebook to give access for free but only to their services if they want to.
syphilis2 9y ago
FCC chairman Pai has been very public about revoking Title II status. You can read his wolf in sheep's clothing speech from last week: https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-speech-future-internet-regulation https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-speech-future-inte... It's a disappointment after Wheeler, but entirely expected, to see Pai fighting against net neutrality. I suggest reading the response by commissioners Clyburn and FTC commissioner McSweeny: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-cmmr-clyburn-ftc-cmmr-mcsweeny-joint-statement-open-internet https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-cmmr-clyburn-ftc-cmmr-mcswe... https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/headlines https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/headlines
0xcde4c3db 9y ago
That timeline of Google ads in Part 3 is pretty damning. Not of Google specifically, but of the whole push for "native advertising". This also ties in with "engagement" measures like autoplay-by-default on YouTube and "next article" popups on news sites. It's all about maximizing appropriation of users' attention.

322 points by bootload 9y ago

roesel 9y ago

This is insanely wordy. I would appreciate a TL;DR;

_nalply 9y ago
Each communication technology tends to cycle through phases: Invention, pioneering, commercialisation, lock-down and obsolescence: telegram, telephone, radio, cinema, TV, etc. Internet is in the lock-down phase if net neutrality is not enforced. Without net neutrality providers can split the Internet into channels and make bundles out of channels, like this: Base Internet $29.95 plus International sites $5 plus news $5, and so on. This way they can make more money. However this will force out the long tail (niche content) and force us into walled gardens and in the future even get us an Internet as locked-down as China's. This is not capitalism, but corporatism. We should fight the lock-down by donating to specific non-profits, educate about the open Internet, contact representatives and share the article. Perhaps one should make a tl;dr out of this?
- louithethrid 9y ago
  TL;DR now costs extra, because im some important pipe-part of the thread stack, and demand money to squeeze it down further.
- losteric 9y ago
  tl;dr: Rent-seeking edit: seriously though, read the article... it's not long
gumby 9y ago
It's only about 8,000 words. Long by Buzzfeed standards, short by The New York Review of books.
bootload 9y ago
"This is insanely wordy. I would appreciate a TL;DR;" Start here: "How to Read a Paper" ~ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14228912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14228912 Is it that hard to read the title and the first 100 words. In papers this is usually the abstract. If you can't find the meaning inside the first one hundred or so words it is waffle and may not be worth reading. Here is a hint. Network neutrality, enshrined in law, is under attack by large ISP companies for control and profit. There are precedents in our technology history. Tech companies are not run by benevolent skivvied, sandal wearing hippies, who hang around the Dalai Lama in their spare time to be enlightened. If you disagree with my editorialising, that's what happens if you ask someone else to re-interpret the story. Read the entire article instead.
endgame 9y ago
It's also well written and rolls along at a decent pace.

ohthehugemanate 9y ago

I like the irony that this well researched and thought out article is published on medium.

niftich 9y ago
There is no irony here. Today, with net neutrality, the author can choose to publish on Medium, where some publishers and readers congregate for particular types of content, and anyone on the Internet who wants to read Medium can, without having to buy into a price-discriminated tier to escape beyond the home-turf vertical. In the future, will you be able to say the same?
- nebabyte 9y ago
  There absolutely is. Medium is in that "one of X top sites" while blogs would be in the long tail. "Without having to buy X" just means you've yet learned nothing of the past. "Without having to buy" is just internet.org and (potentially, ultimately) a good tagline for trial subscriptions of zero rated content. It's not the money (or "free" gratis) that matters, it's the control (or "free" libre). People continuing to fundamentally not understand the rationale of controlling your own tech will be the single biggest contributor to "efforts to save the internet" failing, if you ask me.
  - niftich 9y ago
    Due to network effects and the 'discovery' problem, content on the Web will likely continue to need content silos and content aggregators to expand reach. This alone isn't a problem -- or maybe it is, depending on your point-of-view, but isn't equivalent to the issues raised in the parent post. Equal access to pipes regardless of the nature of transmitted content -- net neutrality, or as you phrase, the libre aspect is a necessary prerequisite for mass-market and indie content to both have a chance to thrive -- and not just your home ISP's preferred partners. I get what you're saying, but both of them matter: the point is to get the same playing field, and not sidestep it with either a lower or higher price -- either zero-rating, or by charging more for a broader range of access.
9y ago

quincyla 9y ago

Author here. I just realized someone had submitted this to HN. I spent a lot of time researching and writing this article, and am excited to read any feedback you may have. Also, here's how you can contact the FCC directly: 1-888-225-5322 press 1, then 4, then 2, then 0 say that you wish to file comments concerning the FCC Chairman’s plan to end net neutrality Or on the web: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express Under Proceedings, enter 14-28 and 17-108 Suggested script: It's my understanding that the FCC Chairman intends to reverse net neutrality rules and put big Internet Service Providers in charge of the internet. I am firmly against this action. I believe that these ISPs will operate solely in their own interests and not in the interests of what is best for the American public. In the past 10 years, broadband companies have been guilty of: deliberately throttling internet traffic, squeezing customers with arbitrary data caps, misleading consumers about the meaning of “unlimited” internet, giving privileged treatment to companies they own, strong-arming cities to prevent them from giving their residents high-speed internet, and avoiding real competition at all costs. Consumers, small businesses, and all Americans deserve an open internet. So to restate my position: I am against the chairman's plan to reverse the net neutrality rules. I believe doing so will destroy a vital engine for innovation, growth, and communication. This information is taken from this thread on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6894i9/heres_how_to_contact_the_fcc_with_your_thoughts/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6894i9/heres_ho...

bootload 9y ago
" I just realised someone had submitted this to HN." I did, important and a good read. Trivial Q. What search term did you use on google to get show the paid adverts google inserts above "freecodecamp"? Was the term generic? I get this result (no adverts, many links to freecodecamp): https://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/34191703472 https://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/34191703472
- quincyla 9y ago
  I just used the term "freecodecamp". I think they showed the ad based on geolocation.

bamboozled 9y ago

Maybe losing the current web wouldn't be that bad, it's largely become a centralised, tracking and surveillance tool for mass marketing and used for spying on citizens. One gets the feeling that any significant level of "openness" died a long time ago. It's not that it's useless, but a fresh start might not be the worst outcome.

myowncrapulence 9y ago
This is exactly why an entirely encrypted internet would be desirable. ISP's won't be able to track or throttle since they won't know who's connecting to what.
- studentrob 9y ago
  That would stifle development in its own way. We haven't repealed net neutrality yet. Let's keep at it and see where this goes.
- gregmac 9y ago
  Or your ISP would just MITM everything and provide their own CA you must accept to use their service.
- topranks 9y ago
  It would need to be like TOR - if you just encrypted then they'd see who you were talking to, just not what you're saying.
darkkindness 9y ago
> a fresh start might not be the worst outcome. The article gave the implication of having a locked-down internet reminiscent of China's -- losing net neutrality doesn't necessarily mean losing this centralized, tracking and surveillance tool for mass marketing and spying. I would love to hear your definition of 'fresh start'.
- nebabyte 9y ago
  I'm guessing they're holding out for a meshnet. Less realistically likely to be implemented at scale (and scale is what makes the internet as wonderful as it is) anytime soon than uber's moonshot of building their autonomous fleet in time tbh Also even if that is it it would solve nothing, [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14220269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14220269

studentrob 9y ago

How can we translate this for laypeople? This was my attempt, > Imagine your existing water utility divided its offerings into "regular water" and "super clean water". You'd think, wait, isn't my tap water already clean? And you'd be right. > Swap "regular water" for "faster internet to specific websites" and you get the lobbyists' argument for killing net neutrality. It would produce slow internet to websites that don't pay up, effectively allowing ISPs to earn money two times for the same product, and elbowing smaller content producers out of the internet Improvements welcome. I think it could be more succinct.

theprop 9y ago
Try this: imagine the government put up a fence in front of everyone's house and they let poor people in fine, but charged rich people to get in through the fence. That's the basic idea for ISPs...they want to charge Google, Facebook, etc. money. They're already charging Netflix (Verizon forced them to pay or they would throttle them). There is NO CHANCE that ISPs will actually invest in two technically different products like regular/super clean water! That's just how ISPs want paint the debate, that they want the right to invest in "better technology", but the bottleneck is the last mile and the chances that Verizon will lay 2 different cables to your house is exactly zero! The requirement for prejudicial packet routing to deliver things like HD video is a non-starter, Netflix when it's not getting throttled is already delivers great hi-def video in the current non-prejudicial packet-based internet. It is really pure "extortion"...at least in my view and a clear case of necessary government intervention to insure fair market behavior (e.g. ISPs can only charge consumers, not web services, for internet service).
- studentrob 9y ago
  Thanks for your ideas! Points about bottleneck at the last mile and Verizon not offering to lay more cabling to your house are good I realize that ISPs want to paint the debate as separate products. I wanted to use their language in my description so that people can interpret their words alongside mine. If you're constantly making different points and not addressing your opponents', I feel the listener will walk away with a 50/50 chance of agreeing with you, probably choosing to follow their political party. If you offer some translation, maybe we can get some meaningful discussion about it. Regarding charging rich people to enter the fence. I feel that would only help convince the general public that net neutrality benefits big companies. Google and Facebook, forgive me if you work there, are teetering on not being perceived as evil mega corporations with access to all our data. Naming them as a victim doesn't do much to win over the public.

spectrum1234 9y ago

My main gripe with Net Neutrality is simple economics. For almost any good or service you can pay for different tiers of quality. Why should the internet not be this way too? If the answer is because its a monopoly I would have to disagree.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jkoll 9y ago
Websites already pay for the internet connections their servers use...
pdonis 9y ago
There can still be tiers of quality under Net Neutrality. ISPs can still offer different levels of bandwidth to their customers for different prices. What they can't do under Net Neutrality is offer faster bandwidth for websites that pay up and slower bandwidth for websites that don't.
H4CK3RM4N 9y ago
You can pay for faster postage in the same way you can pay for a higherspeed connection. But, what ISPs are trying to do is make you pay for faster postage on letters printed on pink paper.
wmf 9y ago
What ISPs are doing goes far beyond different tiers of quality. Like TWC/Spectrum secretly intentionally congesting Netflix, then telling customers that upgrading to a faster plan will fix it (which it won't, because the customer's plan wasn't the bottleneck). Then TWC/Spectrum secretly stopped congesting Netflix after Netflix secretly paid them. Like AT&T/Verizon charging content providers to bypass caps, then probably secretly charging their own content provider much less than they charge other companies. In theory the FCC's "not my problem" policy may allow these cases to be solved by the FTC, but first the FTC would have to somehow find out that this stuff is going on.
Spivak 9y ago

afriend4lyfe 9y ago

If the big ISPs started throttling data and putting up walled gardens, what would stop competitors from entering the market to offer the "net neutral" flavor of internet we're used to? Some communities are already banding together to start their own ISPs. I'm not familiar with how they deal with the "last mile" infrastructure challenge. But if it only took a big investment up front then that begs the question why did Google Fiber fail? Lack of community support? If net neutrality was as valuable to us as we make it out to be, then what would stop local grassroots efforts from installing their own community-based ISPs in response to losing it?

studentrob 9y ago
Good question. I wouldn't say Google fiber failed. They've paused expansion. Also, living overseas in Taiwan I get 50+ Mbps down/5 up for $4/month on a landline (cable), paid a year in advance, and in SE Asia you can get 3g Sims giving 5gb data for $10. Here I pay $6 for 1gb 3g per month, prepaid. Granted, Taiwan is much more urbanized so costs for this go down, but it begs the question what sort of stranglehold ISPs hold over urban America. Perhaps urban America is subsidizing rural America, and Google didn't want to play that game to its finish. Just a wild guess. Anyway, much too soon to call that product a failure, particularly since it is still active.
niftich 9y ago
> what would stop local grassroots efforts from installing their own community-based ISPs High meatspace costs (digging, permits), obstruction of easements by incumbents (like pole access [1][2]), and in 19 states, state laws [3], are some of the barriers to municipal broadband efforts in the US. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/att-explains-why-it-sometimes-delays-google-fiber-access-to-poles/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/att-e... [2] https://www.wired.com/2016/09/utility-poles-important-future-internet/ https://www.wired.com/2016/09/utility-poles-important-future... [3] https://muninetworks.org/communitymap https://muninetworks.org/communitymap
rayiner 9y ago
> Some communities are already banding together to start their own ISPs. I'm not familiar with how they deal with the "last mile" infrastructure challenge. But if it only took a big investment up front then that begs the question why did Google Fiber fail? Lack of community support? Google Fiber failed because Google doesn't care about fiber; they care about creating competition for ISPs to ensure continued access to its services. They realized they don't need fiber for that-5G technologies will be good enough to create competition for ISPs but can be deployed far more cheaply.

transposed 9y ago

“Those are some lovely data packets you’ve got there. It sure would be a shame if they got lost on their way to your users.” There were a lot of good quotes from the article, but this one struck me as particularly apt. I saw something on tumblr today about how "net neutrality" just doesn't resonate with people - and it's true - I tried striking up conversation about this and some people didn't even know what I was talking about.

markdown 9y ago
In my country, mobile service providers (Vodafone, Digicel, Connect) all have very popular packages like "Sign up for this data plan for $6 and get free unlimited access to Facebook and Instagram. Anyone trying to push net neutrality here would have a hard time getting the masses on board once told they'd have to give up "free" social media.
- intended 9y ago
  Which country is this ?
  - markdown 9y ago
    Fiji
    - r3bl 9y ago
      ...and Serbia. And Bosnia. And Montenegro. And Croatia. And I'm like 70% certain that I've seen similar billboards in Poland as well a couple of months ago, but can't confirm it.
  - greenhatman 9y ago
    We have this in South Africa as well.

nebabyte 9y ago

> This isn’t capitalism — it’s corporatism. Capitalism is messy. It’s wasteful. But it’s much healthier in the long run for society as a whole than central planning and government trying to pick the winners. > Capitalism allows for small businesses to enter and actually stand a chance. Corporatism makes it impossible. What you're calling "corporatism" is simply "late stage capitalism". As long as you continue to buy into the delusion that your almoghty dollar will make you a multimillionaire someday, you empower those who have the actual machines of finance under lock and key to act as the new monarchs of your world.

studentrob 9y ago
You act like a full scale revolution is the only solution and that this would somehow redistribute wealth. I really doubt it. If done all at once, there'd be a power vacuum that someone would come into. I think we can support last-mile competition or regulation, and educate people about why net neutrality is important. That's our job as technologists.
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  > You act like a full scale revolution is the only solution and that this would somehow redistribute wealth. Where did that come from? I didn't read that in the above comment. Unless you have this idea that to get to socialism one has to undergo a bloody revolution? Nope. One just have to set up taxes properly and pump up public services.
  - studentrob 9y ago
    I inferred it from previous similar discussions about "late stage capitalism". "Late stage" implies people think we should get rid of capitalism soon. I don't see that happening. I don't want full-on communism / socialism , as it's been demonstrated to be a failed incentive for countries to both grow innovation and to defend themselves against the far-right-leaning societies in the world. Maybe once we're all connected and communicating more effectively, we can stop building armies. I don't think we're there yet.

DonbunEf7 9y ago

I have seen these five steps before, in a dream. They are chaos, discord, confusion, bureaucracy, and the aftermath. Discordians stand vindicated.

AndyMcConachie 9y ago

To be clear this is less about the Internet and more about the USA. I doubt Internet users in other countries should really care about net neutrality in the USA. If anything, once the FCC ruins the Internet for Americans other countries will take pride in being less like the USA and strengthening their net neutrality legislation. Similarly to how health care discourse in EU countries often cites the USA as the bad example to avoid.

75dvtwin 9y ago

I do not think anybody wants ISPs to be in charge of internet. However, I also believe, that most do not want USA FCC to be in charge of internet either. Arguing for a benefit, without clearly identifying the strategic negatives, is intellectually dishonest. Perhaps, it is with the help of these types of arguments, is how some monopolies and dictatorships are built out. Here is an example of the discussion analyzing some arguments of the validity of FCC reach: "This Comment argues that requiring ISPs to filter pirated material is within the FCC's ancillary jurisdiction pursuant to Title I of the Communications Act,'1 but only so long as the targeted activity has a detrimental impact on network activity." http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1436&context=uclf http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic... pp. 535-538 I would argue, that it is the power of consumer choice to obfuscate his/her usage of internet (and, protecting companies that help with that) -- should be the goal. Rather than, giving FCC the authority to regulate ISPs or consumer usage of the internet, via the ISPs. I do want to mention that I appreciated some (but not all) analogies used by the author. I liked this one especially. "Not only did Western Union back Hayes’ campaign financially, it also used its unique position as the information backbone for espionage purposes. " It reminded me, in just recent history, of how the previous (2008-2016) US president used US (and, probably, UK's) foreign intelligence services to target the opposition of his foreign policies, and the people's choice of the next president. I also liked the analogy of TV and facebook, I fully agree -- Facebook is working hard on creating a 'walled garden' of information dissemination, and digital identity of every individual. And they would love to cut out the 'amateur hobbyists'.

Jaymoon85 9y ago
I agree. Nobody is considering the problems an FCC-regulated internet brings to the table. With the exception of the telegram and cinema (those controlled by Western Union and Hollywood), the feds regulate the telephone, radio, and television. The internet is just the latest thing government bureaucrats want control over. > With the fate of a major Internet policy in the balance, Pai's proposal may lend momentum to U.S. lawmakers who have proposed replacing the current FCC rules with congressional legislation. Republican members of Congress have said they are ready to craft a bill that enshrines some of the existing regulations permanently into law. But that effort is expected to stall without support from Democrats, such as Sens. Edward J. Markey (Mass.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) who argue the FCC can and should regulate ISPs more heavily. [1] In regards to Facebook, Twitter, etc. creating their own modern walled gardens, let them. They'll soon see the demise that others have, 10-20 years ago. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/04/26/heres-the-fccs-plan-to-undo-its-own-net-neutrality-rules/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/04/26...

hartator 9y ago

I am for paying a neutral gateway to Internet. However, I don't get why we should forbid Facebook to give access for free but only to their services if they want to.

syphilis2 9y ago

FCC chairman Pai has been very public about revoking Title II status. You can read his wolf in sheep's clothing speech from last week: https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-speech-future-internet-regulation https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-speech-future-inte... It's a disappointment after Wheeler, but entirely expected, to see Pai fighting against net neutrality. I suggest reading the response by commissioners Clyburn and FTC commissioner McSweeny: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-cmmr-clyburn-ftc-cmmr-mcsweeny-joint-statement-open-internet https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-cmmr-clyburn-ftc-cmmr-mcswe... https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/headlines https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/headlines

0xcde4c3db 9y ago

That timeline of Google ads in Part 3 is pretty damning. Not of Google specifically, but of the whole push for "native advertising". This also ties in with "engagement" measures like autoplay-by-default on YouTube and "next article" popups on news sites. It's all about maximizing appropriation of users' attention.