24 ms·

Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet

• ShirsenduK 9y ago
  In my hometown, Darjeeling (India), Internet has been blocked since June 17, 2017 by the government to censor the citizens of the area. Media doesn't cover us well as its a small town. How do we Battle for the Internet? How can we drum up support?
• ambicapter 9y ago
  This has been the weakest day of action I could imagine. I thought sites were going to be throttled. Turns out its just some color changes and, oh, reddit has a fancy "slow-loading" gif for their website name. A real wake-up call!
  • scottLobster 9y ago
    I know right? The question for me is why? Netflix has gone on record saying "well, we're big enough to negotiate the deals we want so we don't particularly care if the ladder gets pulled up behind us". I imagine many other big corporations/sites are in similar positions. But even so I doubt they'd want to make said deals in the first place, they'd be expensive. So isn't a stronger response in their best interest? Or perhaps they're all secretly looking forward to fast lanes they can buy...
    • cracell 9y ago
      I think they just don't see the point. I don't think the people pushing to dismantle net neutrality are stupid. They know that removing it is bad for innovation and consumers but they'd rather help the ISPs make more money than help keep America's economy healthy overall. Probably because they directly receive benefits from the ISPs. So since we are all being ignored, why will yelling louder make a difference?
      • scottLobster 9y ago
        It worked against SOPA/PIPA, although granted that was legislation up for a vote, not the policy of a commission. At the very least it might give some of the politicians a moment of pause to know they're seriously pissing off other powerful moneyed interests, and it would certainly increase public awareness and perhaps make more people care. If you talk about how YouTube might be throttled without Net Neutrality, people will definitely care.
        • fuckthissite 9y ago
          yeah but back then this site wasnt full of bitches
  • satsuma 9y ago
    I would like to see sites with severely limited usage as well but I imagine that would result in angry customers who don't give a rip one way or the other hurting the bottom line.
    • cderwin 9y ago
      This is correct. I am not a fan of net neutrality and the level of "protest" that has appeared today already makes me uneasy. It's easy to claim that google is so monolithic that blocking its services for a day would be a crippling blow to the anti-net neutrality crowd, but it's really just blackmail. I don't think the public would be responsive to such a threat, and there are plenty of alternatives (even if the quality isn't quite the same). I'm sure one of those alternatives would be content to not force its politics on its customers.
      • omnimus 9y ago
        Wow - not a friend of net neutrality? Such person exists?! And reads hacker news? Site which sucess is directly connected to open internet .. I thought that this will be the one issue where hacker news crowd will be united.
  • lossolo 9y ago
    Google has global network with their caches everywhere. If you want private peering with google you can have it for free, they will not pay for peering with you. I know an example in one of Eu countries in which big ISP wanted google to pay them for private peering, this ISP had around 40% of internet market in this country. Google said no and this isp is peering with google for free now, while charging other companies double digit euro for megabit.. Google has so much private peering around the world that they just don't really care, it will not affect them too much. People will change their ISP to have fast youtube access rather than stop to use youtube or google.
    • merb 9y ago
      > this ISP had around 40% of internet market in this country oh I tought it is way more than 40%. well the problem is the other providers are not (that) better options either.
  • MrZongle2 9y ago
    Clearly, this day of action needs more hashtags. Maybe a building to be lit up in different colors tonight. /s Seriously, I'm disgusted by what counts as "action" these days. This reeks of lip service, nothing more.
  • colept 9y ago
    I was hoping Amazon would do something creative like offering Prime Six-Day Shipping but nope - just some graphic tossed aside so they can keep selling Fire devices.
  • code777777 9y ago
    I think we need a new term and perhaps a visceral, easily understandable metaphor. Common Joe just doesn't get it or know what we're talking about. He instantly gets "death panel" or "fake news." But net neutrality sounds like something fuzzy almost benign.
    • dragonwriter 9y ago
      “Open Internet” is good, and is what the FCC policy focus has always been labelled.
      • gervase 9y ago
        The biggest problem with terms with a positive connotation is that both sides will claim them. For example, Comcast will simply say "we support Open Internet" with the implication that "Open" in this context means "We can do whatever we want with our own lines.", i.e. complete corporate freedom. This deliberately promotes confusion, and then whoever has the most money wins. In my opinion, the biggest problem is that this topic is relatively more technical than most people are used to understanding, which makes it very difficult to convey the various ramifications without over-simplifying.
    • ABCLAW 9y ago
      I've always thought "Anti-Internet Racketeering" described the issue and ramifications pretty succinctly.
      • scottLobster 9y ago
        Too many syllables for a good slogan. Need something like "It's my internet!" or "Fight internet extortion!"
    • djsumdog 9y ago
      Many countries don't have network neutrality. In Australia, Optus use to off "free social" where Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia and a few other sites didn't count against your bandwidth. Add network neutrality legislation and it would be very easy to lobby against: "Turnbull wants you to pay more for Facebook and Twitter" Most people don't have an understanding of what Quality of Service is.
  • jansho 9y ago
    Well it's certainly made me pause when I saw HN's fancy grey header. That's perhaps the intention. Raise awareness first, then come together to do something. It's gonna take lots of days of action over the years to gain momentum..
  • boona 9y ago
    Don't you find it weird that businesses have to fake that it's an issue by adding gimmicks to their sites like the slow loading gif? Maybe if it become an actual instantiated issue in the future we could expect a real grassroots movement, but as is, the arguments are mostly academic and it's hard to rally people around that.
  • BinaryIdiot 9y ago
    This is exactly what I thought. Went to reddit.com...where's the Net Neutrality protest? Oh I just realized they made their logo a gif that looks like it loads slow...and they made a post... Went to google.com...the doodle is unrelated and I saw nothing about net neutrality on the site... Went to mozilla.org and I see absolutely nothing about it. I feel like I must be missing something here. Hackernews...looks the same but slightly grayed. Oh the black bar is a link, didn't realize that. But no messages or anything obvious. LinkedIn.com maybe? Nothing Twitter? They have a hashtag that's trending...that's it. Facebook? I see nothing. Not even a trending topic. This is a very luke warm day of technology companies protesting net neutrality. I expected at least a tiny blurb on a homepage SOMEWHERE. So far Netflix and DuckDuckGo are the only large sites that I've notice actually put something on their homepage.
    • chiefofgxbxl 9y ago
      Agreed, this is a very poor showing of support from major websites. I remember Wikipedia doing a "black out" day, along with several other websites years back. If you visited the web page, all you saw was a black page and a quick explanation that the web could be censored if legislation were to pass. I've visited several participants' sites to see nothing. GitHub didn't have a single thing, Wikipedia: nothing, and Google (or Alphabet) isn't even listed on the list of participants [0]. [0] https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants
      • marksomnian 9y ago
        The Wikipedia community seems to have a strong dislike [0][1][2] for anything like the SOPA blackout, partially as it's not as black-and-white as SOPA, and partially because Wikipedia directly wouldn't be affected (their site is pretty fast). Worth noting that Wikipedia Zero [3] exists, and has been taking flak for not being the most NN-friendly initiative. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_162#Net_neutrality_maybe_in_great_danger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_140#Is_anything_happening_with_Wikipedia_in_relation_to_the_July_12_Net_Neutrality_day_of_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(propos... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_139#Wikipedia_and_Net_Neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(propos... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25...
  • stordoff 9y ago
    I didn't even realise it was today until part way through reading this page of comments. Hacker News -> Noticed the black/grey bar, but assumed it was a variant of the "someone notable has died" black bar so didn't pay it much attention. Reddit -> Didn't even see the altered logo until probably the tenth page I was on, and just though "Oh, the logo didn't load in all the way, weird" (by the time it gets to the "Bandwidth exceeded" message it's probably off the page, and even that's hardly a call to (user) action). Google/Twitter/Facebook -> Didn't notice anything.
  • prawn 9y ago
    They're hedging their bets. They don't want to alienate half their audience, so they make a token show for the minority that care, and leave it at that. Also, isn't it likely that the largest companies would benefit most if they were in a position to pay for priority over small upstart competitors?
• rtx 9y ago
  FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: Why He's Rejecting Net Neutrality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28
  • jerf 9y ago
    I'd like to point out that even if you disagree with this video that hearing it straight from the source is valuable. If you want to convince Ajit Pai that he's wrong, knowing what his current (public) opinion truly is (rather than just someone's strawman) makes it way easier.
    • djsumdog 9y ago
      Well, if he really believes it. I high doubt most people in these positions believe a fraction of what they say. They're being backed by major telecom firms to promote a narrative.
      • mr_spothawk 9y ago
        The video does not support the narrative that Ajit doesn't know/believe what he's talking about.
      • austincheney 9y ago
        There is a supported narrative either way. At its heart the net neutrality argument is really a media versus delivery argument. You could arguably eliminate substantial amounts of network congestion, and thus the need for telecoms to throttle in the first place, by eliminating online advertising and data tracking. Imagine, instead, if this were a choice between net neutrality or SOPA. If you had to choose one which would you find the be the lesser evil? In the end you are either playing the game media wants or the way telecoms want.
      • pzone 9y ago
        How about replying to his points directly instead of attacking his motives?
    • 9y ago
• dmamills 9y ago
  This day is a joke.
  • dmamills 9y ago
    I know that HN hates "unproductive comments", but I feel my comment is as likely as effective of "raising net neutrality awareness" as the silly grey logo bar topping this website right now.
    • dmamills 9y ago
      I'm glad this comment sits at the bottom of this post. It's reflective of how the zeitgeist actually cares about this issue. The Battle For the Net website mentions a vast range of online companies who apparently stood in solidarity to take action on this day. * Github: a blog post displayed on your feed. * Etsy: Nothing. * Kickstarter: Nothing. * Netflix: Nothing. * Twitter: Nothing. * Vimeo: A featured video on the landing page. * Reddit: A tiny blurred logo. * Hacker News: A grey bar! * Mozilla: Nothing. * OkCupid: Nothing. What a great display!
      • mconley 9y ago
        > * Mozilla: Nothing. Really not sure what you're talking about here. Along with this blog post: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/07/11/defending-net-neutrality-day-action/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/07/11/defending-net-neutr... There's a snippet on about:home about Net Neutrality for every Firefox user: https://ffp4g1ylyit3jdyti1hqcvtb-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/FX.png https://ffp4g1ylyit3jdyti1hqcvtb-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-... We've got a form here to make it easy to submit your comments to the FCC: https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality-comments https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality-comments We even voiced 9hrs worth of Net Neutrality comments that had already been submitted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=twksX_S3vkg https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=twksX_S3vkg The most recent episode of the IRL Podcast is centered completely around Net Neutrality: https://irlpodcast.org/episode2/ https://irlpodcast.org/episode2/
• AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  Thanks in part to net neutrality, the open internet has grown to become an unrivaled source of choice, competition, innovation, free expression, and opportunity. Unless my history is wrong, and please correct me if that is the case, until the Title II decision in 2015, there were no regulations preventing an ISP from discriminating network traffic. So to say that Net Neutrality has been key to an open internet from 1980-2015 seems without merit. I think the argument here is the same for any argument of nationalization: To turn a private good into a public one. Businesses, local and federal governments, have all contributed to the infrastructure that is the internet. So the private company can't say, "well it was all our investment" and equally the Government can't say "This is a public good."
  • JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    Hasn't the spirit of the Internet always been about a neutral Internet? That spirit was being threatened and so regulations were put in place to keep it neutral.
    • AndrewKemendo 9y ago
      We have retroactively latched on to this RMS style idea of a digital library of alexandria that has somehow been abandoned. It's like nobody remembers the internet of the 90s and how blatantly over the top siloed it was for the average AOL style user. I mean I remember my paid dial up internet service came on a floppy and had it's own browser and pop-up ads. The "free" services required that you click on header links every few minutes.
      • JustSomeNobody 9y ago
        The Internet of the 90's I remember was a small, local ISP that basically gave me creds to a unix system. I had access to ftp, telnet, usenet, web, email, etc. I knew the people working there and could drive over and have lunch with them. They were eager to share how it all worked. As long as you didn't (regularly) go over your storage quota, you were good. This is the neutral net that I recall and so wish I still had. I never once dipped my toes into the AOL muck.
• mnm1 9y ago
  Sorry Google (and FB, Amazon, etc.) this doesn't actually count as taking action. Not even a single link on their home page. An obscure post on a blog won't do shit. Let's stop pretending that you want net neutrality, Google, et al. Day of action my fucking ass.
  • likelynew 9y ago
    Yeah. Unless the CEO of the companies does not come out naked in the street shouting pro net neutrality comments, it does not count.
  • krath94 9y ago
    Google is pissed because the Internet is now under Title II making it nearly impossible for them to lay their fiber along public roads anymore. You know how to really fuck over Comcast? Allow google to bring Fiber to every major city. But they can't because regulation.
    • bratsche 9y ago
      Then maybe they, or Chairman Pai or someone, can talk about how to protect net neutrality in some way other than Title II. Title II was instituted basically as a last resort. And nobody has been coming forward saying, "Okay.. we have a plan here to undo the Title II but still preserve net neutrality."
      • scottLobster 9y ago
        To be fair, the previous FCC tried that. The courts struck it down and told them if they wanted to regulated ISPs in that manner they had to go Title II. Non-Title II regulation of ISPs would require an act of Congress, a Republican-held congress with a Republican President. Good luck with that. :P
    • guelo 9y ago
      That's bullshit. Title II has little to do with Google Fiber's plans or why it's so expensive to lay fiber. Google Fiber has continued expanding after the Title II classification, though their focus has shifted to wireless technologies.
• rf15 9y ago
  Can I contribute without being an US citizen? It seems to be an US-internal issue, but considering that most of the net belongs to the US, this might actually be a far more global question than is legally coverable/definable by US law.
  • studentrob 9y ago
    Good question. You could donate to the ACLU or Fight For the Future. Also, certainly being active online and discussing it openly helps. I think you'd want to refrain from commenting on the FCC website or otherwise pretending to be American. While there are anti-NN folks doing impersonation, it's not a good behavior to copy.
• throwawaycuz 9y ago
  Serious question, could someone please educate me. 1) How is Net Neutrality different from a slippery slope to communism? 2) During the President Obama years, my ISP in the U.S. offered 3 different tiers of service at 3 different prices. How is that pure "net neutrality"? (this was similar to the situation where in the U.S., rich lefty-liberals don't send their kids to public schools... but want poor conservatives to send their kids to public schools, rich lefty-liberals don't want public housing built in their neighborhoods... etc. etc... but still want to virtue signal that they're in favor of public education and public housing)
  • anigbrowl 9y ago
    You say that like it's a bad thing :)
  • rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
    1: Anything can be considered a slippery slope to communism, fascism, etc 2: Your straw man argument relies on a very small subset of the US population and distracts from the issue of net neutrality.
  • idlewords 9y ago
    1) Communism is a belief in the overthrow of existing power relationships through violent revolution, in which the working class seizes the means of production. Net neutrality is a regulatory proposal within an established republican system of government. 2) The 'neutrality' in net neutrality refers to not privileging traffic based on its origin. It has nothing to do with things like different connection speeds.
  • crush-n-spread 9y ago
    1) Net neutrality concerns whether or not it is legal for an ISP to provide more bandwidth and faster service to some websites while providing less bandwidth and speed to other websites. Net neutrality is about who gets fast service and who gets slow service, with fast service being something that can be bought. Communism has to do with ownership of the means of production. ISPs will still be owning access to the internet, so it's not communism. 2. Your ISP offering three different tiers of internet is like being able to buy three different priced cars. That is perfectly OK and has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. However, if you had to pay $3/mile to drive in one highway lane that had no speed limit, that would be like net neutrality. It seems like you're polarized over left/right politics and don't really understand net neutrality at all.
• idyllei 9y ago
  Net neutrality has been a buzzword for a while now. Large new companies like to harp on it just for views, and they don't really explain to viewers just what losing it will mean. FOX News's motto "We report. You Decide" makes it evident that large networks don't care about the validity of information, just that it generates the largest amount of revenue for them. Companies (and individuals) with money won't care about net neutrality--they can pay their way around it. But the casual user can't afford that, and they aren't being educated as to what this means for them. We need to get large news networks to accurately report the situation and how consumers can help.
• mabbo 9y ago
  If Google were actually serious about Net Neutrality, they would use their insane market power to protect it. How? Well, a simple statement saying "any ISP who abuses net neutrality will have their customers cut off from Google products". No Google search, no YouTube, no Gmail. Have those requests instead redirect to a website telling the customer what their ISP is doing, why Google won't work with them, and how to call to complain to the ISP. Make the site list competitors in the user's area that don't play stupid games. Is this an insane idea? Yep. Would Google come under scrutiny because of their now-obvious market power? Oh definitely. And Google would probably lose money over it. But it would certainly work. People don't get internet, and then decide to use Google. They want Google and then get internet for that purpose. edit: an hour later, fixing an autocorrect word
  • gist 9y ago
    > Well, a simple statement saying "any ISP who abuses net neutrality will have their customers cut off from Google products". No Google search, no YouTube, no Gmail So you are suggesting that they harm their own business interests? For how long exactly?
  • lostlogin 9y ago
    The problem with this is that the people who Google makes money from often aren't the biggest users, that would be blocking the users rather than the customers. I'm unsure if that matters, it would certainly be a massive wake up call to a lot of people.
  • tdb7893 9y ago
    Wouldn't that both be horrible for business and also run them into major anti-trust issues?
    • adventured 9y ago
      It would instantly bring on the full power of the US Government, which can do almost anything it wants to to a corporation through dozens of nasty approaches. I'm shocked at the naivety in this thread after what we just witnessed with the NSA v tech companies. Suddenly Google is facing a fine 10x larger than what the EU just threw at them (after all, look at the business % ratio regarding markets over the last decade, the majority of their business has been in the US), and a dozen agencies begin pursuing them on a variety of issues. The government can do anything it wants to to Google at any time it wants to do it. They have enough methods, they can make Google's existence absolute hell.
• zackbloom 9y ago
  If you use Cloudflare you can install the Battle for the Net widget: https://www.cloudflare.com/apps/net-neutrality https://www.cloudflare.com/apps/net-neutrality
  • jriese 9y ago
    Thanks for mentioning this. Very painless way to raise some awareness.
• bobcallme 9y ago
  "Net Neutrality" in its final form did not solve or fix any problems with the Internet. The definition of "Net Neutrality" is poorly defined, too vague and does not have any proposed legislation attached to "fix" things. Even when new rules were implemented, ISPs still throttled torrents and manipulated traffic. The only way to fix the Internet is to do so from a technical perspective, not by adding more regulations that ISPs won't obey (they work that into their business model). The "Internet" has never been free and has always been controlled by a handful of entities. The only fix for the Internet is if everyone actively participates in the Internet's infrastructure and we work to create technologies that thwart active threats from ISPs or that gives ISPs competition. ;TLDR I don't support Net Neutrality.
  • bluetwo 9y ago
    OK. Does the current situation cause harm? Is there a good reason why it needs to change?
    • pzone 9y ago
      ISPs could provide higher fidelity for voice calls and streaming video by discriminating in favor of these packets.
  • Tasboo 9y ago
    So since it doesn't do everything you want you are totally against it?
    • bobcallme 9y ago
      > "Net Neutrality" in its final form did not solve or fix any problems with the Internet. I'm against it because it as an idea has failed in both its proposal and implementation. If people are going to whine and rally for a "fix", they should at least propose an action that will actually fix things instead of complaining. Proposing new legislation (which I'm not fully in favor of) or expanding rules would be doing something.
  • anth1988 9y ago
• openloop 9y ago
  I am starting a small business. One of the decisions I must account for is network performance versus price. Perhaps I choose to partner with a company that my network deprioritizes. I am already at a disadvantage because I cannot afford to run my own lines cross state like large corporations. These same corporations can invest or purchase smaller new buisness and enhance their portfolio. Some already support network neutrality as they understand this. I know my buisness depends upon my own effort. But I am sure many other small buisness owners face the same difficulty. I know it is hard to be fair and objective in allowing access to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
• openloop 9y ago
  I am starting a small business. One of the decisions I must account for is network performance versus price. Perhaps I choose to partner with a company that my network deprioritizes. I am already at a disadvantage because I cannot afford to run my own lines or peer like large corporations. These same corporations can invest or purchase smaller new buisness and enhance their portfolio. Some already support network neutrality as they understand this. I know my buisness depends upon my own effort. But I am sure many other small buisness owners face the same difficulty. I know it is hard to be fair and objective in allowing access to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Thanks for the article.
  • dingo_bat 9y ago
    "Boo hoo it's so hard to do business!" is not going to cut it, I'm afraid. The government and all citizens do not exist to enable you to do business. The policy should be what's right, and it should preferably follow the basic principles of modern society: free market. Whether NN enables competition or kills it is debatable. But difficulty in business is not a reason.
    • spencerflem 9y ago
      Imo ISPs shouldn't be allowed to be a free market as they are monopolies. Whether they should be codified as monopolies like electricity/water is debatable. They absolutely should not be treated like a restaurant where you can just go next door if they start screwing you over though.
      • dingo_bat 9y ago
        > they are monopolies If being granted monopoly status is the problem, let's fix that. Instead of treating it as a given and imposing unneeded regulation on top.
• JoshTriplett 9y ago
  Now if only this were linked from the bottom of google.com .
  • vdnkh 9y ago
    Yeah, it would also give weight to an otherwise lukewarm article. It's way to bogged down in Standard Business English to make a coherent thrust.
  • dessant 9y ago
    Or better yet, from their logo. Like they did for the SOPA and PIPA Internet blackout: https://www.google.com/doodles/sopa-pipa https://www.google.com/doodles/sopa-pipa.
• executive 9y ago
  Help Preserve the Open Internet: Repeal and Replace Google AMP
• heydonovan 9y ago
  The marketing for Net Neutrality is very poor. Just asked a few non-technical friends about it. A few responded with "Do you believe everything you read on the Internet?". Now if all their favorite websites were shutdown for a day, that would get everyones attention.
  • drspacemonkey 9y ago
    The worst is when a non-technical person tries to bring up the Fairness Doctrine, as if net neutrality is in any way related to the government regulating content. But it is a handy way to identify people who get their news from bullshit sources.
• cyphar 9y ago
  I know this is "old news" now, but it's very fascinating that Google is suddenly so concerned about "the open internet" 4 days after EME was ratified (a proposal that they authored and forced other browsers into supporting thanks to their enormous browser share). It feels like Google (and other companies for that matter) are only concerned about "the open internet" when it benefits their bottom line. In fact, I'm not convinced that Google _does_ care. For SOPA and PIPA they actually did a (lukewarm) blackout of their site for the day of action. Wikipedia shut down on that day. Where has all of the enthusiasm gone?
  • markdoubleyou 9y ago
    Yeah, wow, Google has written an email to a powerless online community. Bravo, that'll show Ajit! I remember the mass freakout when Wikipedia shut down--journalists and congressional staffers suddenly couldn't do their jobs and suddenly it was front page news, not just a John Oliver rant.
• rnhmjoj 9y ago
  Google trying to preserve the Open Internet... yeah right.
• EdSharkey 9y ago
  I don't understand the logic of ISP's throttling certain sites based on the traffic to those sites. As a consumer on ISP's last mile lines, I make a series of TCP requests and I expect responses. Fill my pipes with those responses as best you can and charge me for the privilege. If you're not making enough money on that, charge me more for the bandwidth. Market-wise, why would an ISP anything else than fill my pipe with what I'm asking for? An ISP should make all the money it needs to make off my service subscription. It's not too far of a leap for me to imagine U.S. laws being changed that restrict ISP's to only being able to charge the end-user for their subscriptions with heavily regulated flat fees for peering arrangements and co-location services placed near the consumer. The obvious shenanagans that are ramping up here will eventually lead to a massive consumer backlash and a regulatory hammer coming down. People are not going to forget what the open internet looked like.
  • thehardsphere 9y ago
    You're correct to ask these questions. The truth is that the entire motivation behind Net Neutrality is predicated on hypothetical behavior by an ISP that nobody has ever actually observed in reality for the exact reasons you describe.
    • lerpa 9y ago
      ISPs have a lot to win with keeping their monopolies as it is. Given the amount of alarmism it actually seems to me there is heavy propaganda advocating for the status quo, for some reason, perhaps they want further regulations that can be done more easily through net neutrality. Not sure.
      • thehardsphere 9y ago
        Once you establish that the FCC can regulate the internet, you can do all kinds of very opaque regulation that is difficult to change (e.g. other guy needs to control White House and Congress or sue the government and win). Heavier regulations usually favor established players who can engage in regulatory capture, to shape the new rules to prevent future competition from smaller companies and firms that don't even exist yet. Often times they cloak this motivation with justifications that sound uncontroversial and difficult to object to. I don't know specifically what the real goal is here with Net Neutrality, but that's the sort of thing that happens in other industries all the time. Often in terms of "safety" or "helping the environment."
• natch 9y ago
  Am I going blind, or is Google not listed here amongst the companies listed as participants behind battleforthenet.com? https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants Why, Google? Yes I see they sponsored https://netneutrality.internetassociation.org/action/ https://netneutrality.internetassociation.org/action/ but why not get behind both sites?
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• TheOneTrueKyle 9y ago
  Meanwhile this site shadowbans me and expects me to help them
• dangsacunt 9y ago
  Meanwhile the cunt know as dang is shadow banning people on this website. Yeah fuck your net neutrality
• dangsacunt 9y ago
  Dang you are still a cunt. Keep on shadow banning people on this thread about internet freedom. You fucking piece of shit
• dangsacunt 9y ago
  It means nothing. Dang is just a cunt
• tmaly 9y ago
  Another channel to consider, but much more of a long tail play is to put some effort into the state level political races. Many politicians with the exception of wealthier business people get started at the state level.
• nickysielicki 9y ago
  (This comment is a little bit disorganized, so I apologize for that.) Far too many people don't seem to understand the arguments against net neutrality as it has been proposed... There's been much made about the "astroturfing" and automated comments on the FCC website that go against net neutrality-- but what about the reverse? John Oliver doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Reddit and HN provide warped perspectives on the issue. Don't you guys realize that no matter what policy is chosen, someone is getting screwed and someone going to profit? Don't get me wrong, the ISPs are not exactly benevolent organizations. But I don't think they're evil either. Plain and simple, if you think this is a cut-and-dry, good-versus-evil, conglomerates-versus-littleguy issue, I think you're not hearing both sides of the issue. This issue is between content providers that serve far more bits than they take in, and ISPs, and there are billions of dollars on both sides. In other words, don't think for a second that this is about protecting small internet websites from having to pay ransom. That's not what is going to happen. The only people who are going to be squeezed are the giants like Google, Netflix, etc., and it's no surprise that these are the people who are making such a fuss about it today. The particular event that made me reconsider net neutrality was digging into the details of the Comcast/Netflix/Level3 fiasco a couple years ago. Everything I had heard about that situation made it sound to me like Comcast was simply demanding ransom. The reality of the situation is that L3 and Netflix acted extremely recklessly in how they made their deals, and IMO deserved everything that came to them. Much is made about "eyeball ISPs" and the power it gives them. In reality, I think Netflix has more power in swaying consumers, and I think they used that power to bail themselves out of a sticky situation by badmouthing Comcast. I don't see how compensatory peering agreements would work out well in a net neutral world. Specifically, the FCC proposal for Title II classification (paraphrasing here) said that the FCC would step in when it believed one party was acting unfairly. It is far too open-ended, doesn't list any criteria for what that means, and it's not the FCCs job anyway, the FTC should be doing that. But in general I don't think net neutrality is a good idea. I think that people are out of touch with internet access in rural parts of the US, and I don't think NN is beneficial for that situation at all. My grandmother pays $30/mo for internet access that she barely uses, and I don't think it's right to enshrine into law that Comcast can't offer her a plan where she pays $5/mo instead for limited access to the few sites she uses. As a bandwidth-hogging internet user, a lack of net neutrality will probably mean that I will pay more. But maybe that's how it is supposed to be. The internet didn't turn out to be what the academics once hoped it would be. And that's okay. The internet should serve everyone, however they want to use it, and the market should be built around that principle-- not around decades-old cypherpunk ideals. I think it's incredible that behemoths like Google have the nerve to paint this as if they care about an open internet. It's obvious that their dominance is what makes an open internet irrelevant.
• lerpa 9y ago
  Net neutrality just helps the status quo, and forces the "evil greedy ISPs" to take your money. Yeah let's show them by giving them money and no competition to their business... wait. Vote for less regulation, not just getting rid of NN but getting rid of the monopolies that exist at the local level.
  • J5892 9y ago
    Yeah! Once we remove all regulations, ISPs will be forced to compete with all the little ISPs eagerly waiting to provide service! Net Neutrality does nothing to hinder competition. In fact, we need more regulation to force competition. It's because of a lack of regulation that my city tricked into selling their amazing municipal broadband service to Comcast.
  • rhcom2 9y ago
    > forces the "evil greedy ISPs" to take your money How?
• Anarchonaut 9y ago
  Net neutrality (government's involvement in the Internet) sucks https://www.google.de/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments-against-net-neutrality-and-why-theyre-wrong/amp/ https://www.google.de/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-...
• protomyth 9y ago
  Does anyone have actual legislation written up that I can point my Congresspeople to? Is there a bill that can be introduced that will accomplish the objective of "Net Neutrality"?
• chroem- 9y ago
  It's disingenuous for big business to try to frame this as a grassroots movement for freedom on the internet when they were completely silent about illegal NSA spying. The only difference between NSA spying and losing net neutrality is that without net neutrality their profits might be threatened.
  • thinkingemote 9y ago
    As a fellow non American all I can do is twiddle my thumbs. Perhaps if they addressed how we allies could assist and help that would be great, but it does indeed feel like a parochial dispute which we are not invited to take part but have to hear the shouts nonetheless
• FRex 9y ago
  I can't even enter the USA without a visa that is expensive, hard to get and doesn't guarantee entry but I'm getting all these net neutrality PSAs today telling me to send letters to FCC and Congress... I'm supportive of the idea itself but it's a bit funny and stupid, the Americano-centrism.
  • Zarath 9y ago
    Are you seeing this on any non-American sites?
    • FRex 9y ago
      No, but I still can't call FCC or Congress (or enter USA easily..) so it's completely useless for me to see that.
• throwanem 9y ago
  In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No. 17-108), much is made of the rapid growth of the Internet under the former "light-touch" regulatory regime. The notice overlooks that this was also an environment in which competition among many Internet service providers could and did flourish. Since then, the provision of connectivity has consolidated among only a few very large companies, which among them have strongly oligopolic power to enforce whatever conditions they please upon their customers, both residential and commercial. In the late-1990s, early-2000s environment of healthy competition among Internet service providers, utility-style regulation of ISPs, such as that here under consideration of repeal, was not a necessary measure. However, in the current strongly oligopolic environment, only the regulatory power of the United States Government can continue to provide and enforce sufficient oversight to maintain a semblance of free market behavior. Internet-powered entrepreneurship greatly benefits the US economy. The small, and occasionally large, businesses thus created have an outsized economic impact in terms of taxes paid and jobs created. Absent a true free market, or even the regulatory semblance of one, for Internet connectivity, these businesses may well find themselves severely hampered in their ability to earn revenue, with concomitant negative effect on their ability to contribute to our economy. As such, I must strongly urge the new regulatory regime proposed in this filing not be adopted. I thank you very kindly for your time and your consideration, and trust that you will decide in that fashion which you regard to best serve the interests of your constituents and of the nation which you serve. (Also, the "Battle for the Net" folks would have done well to hire a UX designer - or perhaps to hire a different one. The lack of any clear confirmation that one's message has been sent fails to inspire confidence. Perhaps there's an email confirmation that has yet to arrive, but...)
• tyrrvk 9y ago
  I see a lot of shills posting their anti-Network Neutrality stuff here, so I wanted to chime in reminding folks of a few things: Telco's were forced at one point to share phone lines. Remember all those DSL startups? Remember speakeasy? This was called local loop unbundling. What did the Telco's do? everything possible to break or interfere with these startup service provides. The telco's felt that it was "their lines". Customers were angry and eventually local loop unbundling was dismantled. Ironically - France, South Korea and other nations copied this idea for their high speed network providers - and it actually worked! You can get high speed internet in these countries from a variety of providers. Competition! If the FTC/FCC wasn't completely under regulatory capture, and telcos like AT&T were punished for this behaviour and competitors were allowed to provide services over last mile connections then yes, we might not need something like Network Neutrality. Instead we have entrenched ISP monopolies and no competition. So we need consumer protections like TitleII and Network Neutrality. We also need community owned fiber networks springing up everywhere, which then over time could lessen the need for regulation as market forces would prevail. However, entrenched monopolies like Comcast and AT&T have to be shackled. It's the only way.
  • cookiecaper 9y ago
    Your post is good and I upvoted, but I had to fight the instinct to downvote when you automatically assume those with the opposite POV are "shills", implying they are not sincere contributors. We need more people who are entertaining a moderated dialogue that acknowledge the value of the principles on both sides of the aisle, as your post does: a role for commerce and a role for reasonable regulation. However, calling the other sides "shills" in the first sentence makes many who may benefit immediately dismiss the comment. I would suggest the best way to fix ISP competition is to make wireless ISPs faster/cheaper/better/more reliable. This obviates the "last mile" problem that makes competition in landline businesses so untenable.
    • tyrrvk 9y ago
      It was a bit of a knee jerk reaction - seeing so many posts flooding to the top that were "Pro Telco/Anti NN". I get angry when people say "regulation is bad - let market forces dictate." The point of my post was that 1. there are no market forces with these entrenched companies, and 2. they've already done everything they can to ensure their monopolies stand un-threatened. Therefore, their punishment is regulatory oversight. These companies (AT&T, Comcast etc) cannot have their cake and eat it too. Period. If there were 4-6 choices of ISP in each town/area then sure - drop the NN/Title2 regulation and let them race each other to the bottom, just like the airlines. But they are terrified of that, because that sort of competition is _hard_. Personally, I rank the well being of corporations well below individuals, towns, communities, the environment, space, etc. This might make me a weirdo, but I feel corporations have too much say in all aspects of our life.
• aryehof 9y ago
  Is this just an issue in the USA?
• peterashford 9y ago
  As a New Zealander, I find it extraordinarily inappropriate that global infrastructure like the Internet is being shaped by the whims of US politics and corporate culture. The Internet is a global network of global concern and it should be above the manoeuvring of Republicans and American Internet providers
  • wmf 9y ago
    Are there any examples of this happening?
    • unityByFreedom 9y ago
      Sure, https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio...
      • wmf 9y ago
        Maybe I wasn't clear; I was asking for examples of global infrastructure like the Internet being shaped by the whims of US politics and corporate culture, but the examples provided by Free Press are almost all in the US.
        • unityByFreedom 9y ago
          Ummm democracy? Capitalism? I dunno what you want man. The world is connected. We all impact each other. Europe impacts the US as much as vice versa, as does Asia, etc.
    • peterashford 9y ago
      What do you mean? I don't see the international community having ANY say on Net Neutrality. All the actors in the debate are American. What more do you want?
      • wmf 9y ago
• dzonga 9y ago
  Simple way to understand Net Neutrality, look at the way AT&T prioritizes DirecTV Content on Mobile. It should be illegal, but well
• daveheq 9y ago
  When everybody relies on the internet, even moreso than phones, it's a public utility that needs protection from the greed-feeders.
• forgotmysn 9y ago
  If anyone would like to ask more direct questions about Net Neutrality, the ACLU is having an AMA on reddit right now https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/6mvhn3/we_are_the_aclu_ask_us_anything_about_net/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/6mvhn3/we_are_the_acl...
• shmerl 9y ago
  I didn't see any Net Neutrality related banner at: https://google.com https://google.com So Google didn't do what they could here.
  • studentrob 9y ago
    Agreed. I think it makes them look a bit complicit to not make their stance front and center as they did for SOPA with the blackout. I understand that companies don't want to get involved in politics, but, this is something that directly impacts the future of their business. Long term company health ought to be interested in maintaining net neutrality. Those seeking short term profits would prefer the ability to gut existing company reputation in order to line executives' pockets. I believe Google is still long-term focused, but their lukewarm action here gives me some doubts.
• fuckthissite 9y ago
  fuck your internet freedim you spoiled cunts. Keep on thinking you are making a difference
• thinkingemote 9y ago
  Forgive me as a European but are there companies who oppose net neutrality? As in are there HN readers who work for them? If so, who are they and what are their reasons? Is the issue like same sex marriage where the only opposition is so laughably out of date or are there nuances?
  • bubblethink 9y ago
    One reason is that a lot of these tech companies make a bulk of their money from selling content, which is in large part dependent on production houses that are run by cable companies anyway. So on the one hand Netflix will make a show of supporting net neutrality, but will discriminate among different internet users (vpn users), by denying them access.
• pducks32 9y ago
  Off topic: this is a very nice site. It’s clean, easy to read (iPhone and iPad), and I think it makes good use of Google's design language.
• geff82 9y ago
  Greetings from Europe where we have er neutrality. Good luck to my American friends with voting for a sane government in 3 years. Maybe there are some remainings of the country you could have been.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• pheldagryph 9y ago
  I understand why tech companies and VCs want net neutrality. But this protest is what is wrong with Silicon Valley "culture". It's incredibly out of touch with reality. Are we really being asked to take this hill? Why? By whom? History will record the hundreds of thousands of children who will die of the current-and-present famine affecting East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. It will only exacerbate the current, historic, and costly human migration to Europe. This is a matter of life and death for millions. Though, unfortunately, the cost can only be measured in human lives: https://www.oxfam.org/en/emergencies/famine-and-hunger-crisis https://www.oxfam.org/en/emergencies/famine-and-hunger-crisi...
  • unityByFreedom 9y ago
    How ironic. Without net neutrality, you might have more difficulty raising awareness about your cause of choice- famine. Yet, here you are railing against it.
    • pheldagryph 9y ago
      Is it possible I'm railing against something other than network neutrality, itself?
• wenbert 9y ago
  If this turns out to be big amongst other things, then some "big" news will come up in next few days to cover it up. At least that how they would do it in Philippines.
• valuearb 9y ago
  I have never understood the need for net neutrality. That doesn't mean we don't need it, it means that no one has ever explained the need to me in a way that makes sense. Give me real world examples. What has any ISP done that would violate Net Neutrality that I would object to?
  • HearMeRoar 9y ago
    Why would no good real world example mean that nothing will happen if they win? Why do you think they're pushing it so hard? For fun?
  • unityByFreedom 9y ago
    > What has any ISP done that would violate Net Neutrality that I would object to? Here's a list: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... Excuse me for being blunt, but you're being willfully ignorant if you ask this question. A simple Google search of the exact wording of your question reveals this [1] > "Internet providers have attempted to throttle traffic by type or by user (Comcast in 2007), have imposed arbitrary and secret caps on data (AT&T 2011-2014), hidden fees that had no justification or documentation (Comcast in 2016), and tried to give technical advantages to their own services over those of competitors (AT&T in 2016). These attempts were only revealed in retrospect once they were discovered and lawsuits filed." [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments-against-net-neutrality-and-why-theyre-wrong/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments-ag...
    • valuearb 9y ago
      Thanks for the first link, it's a pretty good summary of the arguments for. My question would be why don't most of those fall under fraud statutes. The second link is the example of crap I've read about the issue that never resonated with me, please don't tell why arguments against are bad, tell me why I need it the the first place. And calling me "willfully ignorant" is a good example of why net neutrality has failed to get wider support. I'm a full-time developer, I do read a lot about a lot of issues, but I'm also busy with a full life. Guess what, my governments tax, drug, school funding, and police policies get more of my attention than a poorly explained argument for limits on ISPs. Advocates should learn to tell their audience clearly and concisely why Net Neutrality benefits them. And without being dismissive or condescending. I mean, only if they want to build more support.
• unityByFreedom 9y ago
  I'm just bummed Google didn't change their banner like the SOPA days. Big miss there.
• yarg 9y ago
  The only real way to ensure net neutrality is to ignore the bullshit and implement a distributed secure internet. Net neutrality could be forced into place, regardless of the laws passed by Congress or the malfeasance of the ISPs. I see no reason why Google would ever support such a thing.
  • rhcom2 9y ago
    The US government probably would fight such a thing too. They already fight municipal broadband.
• joeyspn 9y ago
  Elon Musk to the rescue... (again) https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14952904/elon-musk-spacex-boeing-oneweb-satellite-constellation-network https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14952904/elon-musk-spacex...
  • studentrob 9y ago
    I'm skeptical this wouldn't end up being like Mark's plan to give free "internet" access to India, where "the internet" is selected websites. Anyway I kind of doubt Musk's plan comes to fruition before more threats to Net Neutrality come up. Right now we need to address it at a policy level. New ways of accessing internet won't prevent people from trying to monopolize and control it.
    • hackerkid 9y ago
      > free "internet" access to India, where "the internet" is selected websites. Did you confuse India with China?
      • studentrob 9y ago
        Nope, https://www.cnet.com/news/why-india-doesnt-want-free-basics/ https://www.cnet.com/news/why-india-doesnt-want-free-basics/
        • hackerkid 9y ago
          The free basics plan proposed by Facebook was rejected by the telecom regulatory authority of India due to the protests from people. This was a standadlone incident which happened in 2016. Later 2016 saw the introduction of Jio 4G service provider which began to provide super cheap 4G service for the masses (approx 5$ for 28GB and it was free when it launched) which made other telecoms to drop the prices massively. Apart from some sites which Government has censored I have experienced no major problems with India's Internet. I even traveled from the southern part of India to the northern part in train enjoying uninterrupted 4G Internet earlier this year(Around 2400Km). We are happy how India's ISPs are going and don't have much to complain. Thank you.
• hzhou321 9y ago
  Google, Amazon, Netflix vs. ATT, Verizon, Comcast. Monopolies vs monopolies. Where's the freedom for us?
• newintellectual 9y ago
  Support Car Neutrality! Imagine if you could get cars with bigger engines with more power and had to pay to do so. Imagine if you could get cars built with higher quality generally and had to pay to do so. And of course countless other differentiating characteristics. Obviously, if everyone can't have a bigger engine or higher quality or whatever, then nobody should. Everyone should have exactly the same cars and it should be illegal to make them otherwise just because some people can choose to pay more! Why? Because better hurts our feelings. Why should those able and willing to pay more, get more?
• mychael 9y ago
  Follow the money. Do you really think the biggest corporations in America support Net Neutrality because of some altruistic need for things to be "fair"?
• aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  Consider this your friendly reminder that Clinton would’ve preserved the NN rules set up under Obama, and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion had she been elected. Especially consider this the next time a friend says ‘every politician is the same,’ or whatever.
• tyng 9y ago
  Funny thing is, I can't even visit blog.google from China
• thidr0 9y ago
  One thing I don't understand about net neutrality. Say I'm a toll road. I built the road when cars were relatively small and light. Now, some cars are getting really heavy and big (think semi trucks) and are the majority of my traffic. Because of this, they beat up the road and cause more congestion. So I want to repair the road and/or add more lanes by increasing the toll on these trucks. But all the trucking companies are complaining and preventing me from doing it, thus ultimately hurting the small personal cars that want to zip through. Obviously this is an analogy to net neutrality, so why is this reasonable situation fundamentally different? In a free market, shouldn't I be able to increase the tolls on my private infrastructure for those that put the most stress on it? (Now I will say, the fact that there's only one toll road option for many people is anti-competitive and against the free market, but that's not this topic)
  • sagarm 9y ago
    Packets don't damage network infrastructure, and lack of competition is not a different topic. ISPs' monopoly on access to broadband customers allows them to extract rents based on the marginal value of each transaction. There's no reason we as a society should allow this. Imagine if the cost of your water supply depended on your companies profits. That's what we're talking about here.
  • lowpro 9y ago
    @sagarm 's comment clears this up pretty well, but to clear up the monopoly point: You can always drive on a different road. It might take you a lot longer, but you have many options. Many (most?) internet connections are not like this. Even in suburbs close to big cities any one ISP often has a monopoly. My entire town only has Comcast, and it's very close to a large US city. Personal example, but there's no options.
• blue_leader 9y ago
  All this going and Darpa wants to put ethernet jacks into our brains.
• crucini 9y ago
  While I don't have a good grasp on the larger issue, I hope we can protect small players from being squeezed. In my limited understanding, there are really two separate things here: Comcast vs Youtube and Comcast vs startup. As I understand it, Comcast gets mad that they have to invest in infrastructure so people can watch Youtube. They think Youtube is free-riding on their infrastructure. Comcast is envious of Youtube's profits and eyeballs. So Comcast wants to squeeze money out of Youtube. A battle between giants. The other issue is that small sites including startups could get throttled almost incidentally in this war. They don't use much bandwidth, being small, but if Comcast enacts some "bizdev" process where it takes six months of negotiations to get into the fast lane, any deal below $1M is probably not worth their time. This is how cell phone software worked before the iPhone - get permission before you can develop (IIRC). If we end up with fast-lane preferential pricing, it should really be available to the smallest players. Ideally it should be free, but the Apple app store model would work - $99/year for fast lane access until your bandwidth is really significant. But would the individual have to pay $99 to every major ISP out there?
• gremlinsinc 9y ago
  So glad I live in Utah -- where we have X-mission Pete Ashdown is a huge supporter of EFF and Net Neutrality and anti-NSA -- and Google fiber - google's a big supporter as well. Loved X-mission, but new landlord only has google fiber installed so using that, but both had 1GB connections.. Two great ISP's who WON'T be doing shenanigans like comcast/att when net neutrality is destroyed. Too bad more people in America don't have good choices... I do think though the biggest thing they could do for 'action' --would be every Monday block all comcast/att users from using Google, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Reddit in protest... till the ISPs cry and beg and plead w/ the FCC to re-instate net-neurality. If it's legal to prioritize websites over others... then it's legal for those same websites to prioritize certain ISPs over others...