4 ms·

But isn't this the same issue with Net Neutrality regulations? We're asking the state to enforce net neutrality, but it opens a can of worms. Tomorrow it would

But isn't this the same issue with Net Neutrality regulations? We're asking the state to enforce net neutrality, but it opens a can of worms. Tomorrow it would be "all data should be treated equally, except for govt data which should be prioritized above all." "All data should be treated equally, except for terrorist data, which should be prioritized/blocked".

burkaman 9y ago
This is true of any government at all. "We're asking them to arrest murderers, but what's next, arresting suspected communists?" Well, maybe, depends who you elect. Every government power can potentially be abused.
drdaeman 9y ago
It is. And this is controversial statement but I'm really not sure how I feel about Net Neutrality. Where I'm from (Russia), we had (and still have, to a some extent) a lot of competition in ISP space. This had happened just because government weren't particularly looking at that direction at the time (90s and early 2000s). If one ISP did some weird stuff that upset customers, the market had actually worked and they lost profits, making them reconsider. This may sound weird, but that really was like that - "power" users were vocal, and word of mouth did spread fast. And absence of NN allowed ISPs to do things that were actually beneficial to the customers, like routing specific traffic differently so e.g. gaming would be smoother and files would download faster. Just because content customers meant good reputation - a stable userbase with steady growth. So I don't believe NN is a good idea if the market's right. It only makes sense if it's bad, with a few giant telcos and no competition. [Edit: ignore this paragraph, please. I'm keeping it, but indeed it's a long stretch.] When the government decided they're going to get a grip on the tubes, things immediately got worse. No NN here, though, just censorship - a great pile of unsound kludges with mandatory monitoring and automatic fines if something goes through. But NN here would've killed tiniest ISPs just as well. That's just how I see things. It very well could be that I'm mistaken here.
- ooqr 9y ago
  I appreciate the well-thought-out counter perspective. Do you still live in Russia and do you still feel the same way? If you had to put yourself into the shoes of a US voter, how would you feel?
  - drdaeman 9y ago
    Thanks. Yes, I still do, and feel the same way. I don't yet feel that I understand US realities well enough to be able to have a proper, informed opinion. Still, from what I've heard, there is very limited competition in a lot of areas, when there are essentially mono- and duopolies. In that case, NN may be beneficial, as it acts as a safeguard, as consumers can't vote with their feet. If things are really bad, I think I'd be for NN, but I'd really prefer there'd be some "this must be carefully reviewed in 4-5 years" clause. Otherwise... I'm not really sure, sorry. But, either way, I'd support those who seek to improve ways for new ISPs to start up and grow, as I've heard the entry barriers are very high in the US. I got selected in DV 2018 lottery so, hopefully, if I'll get a visa approval, I will have to form a proper first-hand opinion in some years. :)
    - lambdadmitry 9y ago
      >I got selected in DV 2018 lottery Congrats!
- bjelkeman-again 9y ago
  I don't think it is easy to compare how censorship works in Russia with how Net Neutrality would work in the US (or some other country) it is comparing apples to eggs.
  - drdaeman 9y ago
    Of course. Where they're comparable is that both are government-mandated interventions. Censorship... Yes, now I think I shouldn't have mentioned that, and omitted previous-to-last paragraph. Sorry about this. My overall point was unrelated to what the current government does, though - it was that absence of NN can be beneficial - but only if there is a lot of competition, so when not being neutral doesn't help customers but hurts them, there is a proper feedback loop that makes ISP either have losses or reconsider.

burkaman 9y ago

This is true of any government at all. "We're asking them to arrest murderers, but what's next, arresting suspected communists?" Well, maybe, depends who you elect. Every government power can potentially be abused.

drdaeman 9y ago

It is. And this is controversial statement but I'm really not sure how I feel about Net Neutrality. Where I'm from (Russia), we had (and still have, to a some extent) a lot of competition in ISP space. This had happened just because government weren't particularly looking at that direction at the time (90s and early 2000s). If one ISP did some weird stuff that upset customers, the market had actually worked and they lost profits, making them reconsider. This may sound weird, but that really was like that - "power" users were vocal, and word of mouth did spread fast. And absence of NN allowed ISPs to do things that were actually beneficial to the customers, like routing specific traffic differently so e.g. gaming would be smoother and files would download faster. Just because content customers meant good reputation - a stable userbase with steady growth. So I don't believe NN is a good idea if the market's right. It only makes sense if it's bad, with a few giant telcos and no competition. [Edit: ignore this paragraph, please. I'm keeping it, but indeed it's a long stretch.] When the government decided they're going to get a grip on the tubes, things immediately got worse. No NN here, though, just censorship - a great pile of unsound kludges with mandatory monitoring and automatic fines if something goes through. But NN here would've killed tiniest ISPs just as well. That's just how I see things. It very well could be that I'm mistaken here.

ooqr 9y ago
I appreciate the well-thought-out counter perspective. Do you still live in Russia and do you still feel the same way? If you had to put yourself into the shoes of a US voter, how would you feel?
- drdaeman 9y ago
  Thanks. Yes, I still do, and feel the same way. I don't yet feel that I understand US realities well enough to be able to have a proper, informed opinion. Still, from what I've heard, there is very limited competition in a lot of areas, when there are essentially mono- and duopolies. In that case, NN may be beneficial, as it acts as a safeguard, as consumers can't vote with their feet. If things are really bad, I think I'd be for NN, but I'd really prefer there'd be some "this must be carefully reviewed in 4-5 years" clause. Otherwise... I'm not really sure, sorry. But, either way, I'd support those who seek to improve ways for new ISPs to start up and grow, as I've heard the entry barriers are very high in the US. I got selected in DV 2018 lottery so, hopefully, if I'll get a visa approval, I will have to form a proper first-hand opinion in some years. :)
  - lambdadmitry 9y ago
    >I got selected in DV 2018 lottery Congrats!
bjelkeman-again 9y ago
I don't think it is easy to compare how censorship works in Russia with how Net Neutrality would work in the US (or some other country) it is comparing apples to eggs.
- drdaeman 9y ago
  Of course. Where they're comparable is that both are government-mandated interventions. Censorship... Yes, now I think I shouldn't have mentioned that, and omitted previous-to-last paragraph. Sorry about this. My overall point was unrelated to what the current government does, though - it was that absence of NN can be beneficial - but only if there is a lot of competition, so when not being neutral doesn't help customers but hurts them, there is a proper feedback loop that makes ISP either have losses or reconsider.