7 ms·

I don't see what this fuss is all about. If Facebook wants to offer cheaper Internet with their services prioritized, why not? Plus Internet is far from being

I don't see what this fuss is all about. If Facebook wants to offer cheaper Internet with their services prioritized, why not? Plus Internet is far from being neutral right now. Emails got deliver depending on your server IPs. CDNs already pay to be hosted by ISPs for a fast lane. Torrents don't reach the full capacity of your bandwidth. Etc. The case against government regulations for the Internet is easy to make: Easier to start an ISP, cheaper services for the end consumers, less government expenses to enforce all of that, etc.

fredley 9y ago
Because the fear is that the internet will become like TV: you can't buy access to 'TV', despite the fact there's no technical limitation. You have to buy packages, from different providers in order to get what you want. You have to sign up to hefty subscription packages with loads of bundled shite just to watch 7 hours of Game of Thrones. Currently you buy access to the internet, and that's all internet, at equal priority. You can connect to my little $6 VPS or raspberry pi as easily as you can to Google or Facebook. And that's a great thing. If I want to get my show on TV, I have to negotiate with different channels and studios to try and get it broadcast, anywhere. And even then it would probably be on some shitty channel with tiny viewership, interspersed with ads for medication and financial scams. On the internet I can publish on my own terms, and anybody else with an internet connection can view it, on my terms. Undermining net neutrality threatens this. In the UK some ISPs are providing 'free unlimited access to WhatsApp'. It's just the start of a road that leads to the default model changes from paying for internet access, to most people getting free 'internet', restricted to just those companies who pay the ISP instead to provide free access. This is a slippery slope: once it starts, it will continue until smaller sites are no longer visible to people without 'premium' internet - who will be a minority. This is bad.
- splintercell 9y ago
  > Because the fear is that the internet will become like TV But I would rather take that than Internet becoming like TV, where govt can pass 'fairness doctrine' and other stuff, or restrict it significantly during war time. I'd rather trust economic incentives to keep Internet free than political incentives. If people are willing to pay for full coverage of the War, then even though govt is pressuring ISPs, it results in a losing prisoner's dilemma for ISPs (take for instance the popularity of Al Jazeera during Iraq War).
  - fredley 9y ago
    That's an interesting perspective. Do you not think in times of war greater access to information is a great advantage of the internet? I'm curious as to why you would think that in wartime restricting information might be a good thing (other than persisting the propagation of propaganda!)
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      He doesn't think that; he thinks that Net neutrality is the first step on the road to government censorship of the Internet. I'm not sure by what mechanism.
      - splintercell 9y ago
        Exactly, but also remember, an exploit is an exploit, whether someone uses it or not. If by passing Net Neutrality laws, govt can take over the Internet, then govt can take over the internet at war time even without net neutrality laws. Net Neutrality laws simply make it easier for govt to use this exploit. A lot of HN audience is sympathetic to Canada or UK style restrictions on News channels, where govt is the final arbiter of whether a news channel is spreading lies or not. In America, the people are allowed to do that, and sure people paid a lot of money to listen to lies by NYT that Hillary was on her way to White House (I have even defended NYT's 2016 coverage to my pissed off liberal friends who wanted to cancel their subscription after the elections), but it's their choice. We can't allow govt to control media in the name of 'fairness'.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        How does enforcing net neutrality enable censorship? What does one thing have to do with the other? And what about the (in my opinion, more realistic in the United States) risk of private corporations such as Internet service providers restricting what their users see? Especially when you consider in how many cases your choices are one ISP or else no Internet access at all?
    - splintercell 9y ago
- kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
  Or you could just set up an antenna and enjoy the multitude of digital broadcast channels.
  - drewmol 9y ago
    For now you can, but only until grandma dies. Once the daytime OTA TV watching voting group is small enough, Telco mafia will completely repurpose the spectrum. [1]https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/business/dealbook/tv-station-owners-rush-to-seize-on-relaxed-fcc-rules.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/business/dealbook/tv-s...
- epmaybe 9y ago
  Not discounting your argument, but HBO Now is cable-independent, so you can pay just for HBO and get Game of Thrones.
  - mreome 9y ago
    This is exactly the point. Unless they can FedEx episodes to you, your Comcast/Verizon/Etc internet package could exclude (or slow to unusable levels) such cable-independent services, unless you pay for the Super-Premium internet package that includes them.
- richardknop 9y ago
  You have to sign up to hefty subscription packages with loads of bundled shite just to watch 7 hours of Game of Thrones. You don't have to. Most people watch GoT for free either from torrents or from free streaming websites.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mreome 9y ago
    Which will not be available on your Non-Neutral Comcast/Verizon/Etc Internet Package.
    - richardknop 9y ago
      Yes but this is only in US I guess. Rest of the world is not under Comcast/Verizon monopoly.
scaryclam 9y ago
If facebook start up a service that offers fast network access to their own stuff, that's fine, it wouldn't break net neutraility rules. If facebook pretend to be an ISP and actively degrade performance from other social networks, then they are breaking the rules. Spam filtering etc isn't against NN rules. No-one is delivering emails from marketing firms immediately, while holding back your emails from your aunt Mavis for an additional hour because she won't pay the premium service charge, even though they're coming from the same mailserver. All traffic that is getting delivered is being treated the same, as per NN. CDNs aren't paying for a fast lane, they're paying to be closer to the source of the request. That just makes the hops smaller, it doesn't change the priority of the delivery. If I hand deliver a postcard to you vs putting in the mail 500 miles away, I'm not getting preferential treatment from the postoffice, I'm just closer and hence more able to deliver it faster. Torrents are all slower than your capacity. That's a neutral network. Now, if some were unthrottled because someone paid off the ISP to do so, that would be against NN.
mattnewton 9y ago
As long as you are okay with the "next Facebook" coming from outside the US where they don't have to pay the ISP to reach their initial customers with a reasonable speeds.
grive 9y ago
> Easier to start an ISP The law of physics will gently back off and new ISPs will be able to install infrastructure on top of the existing one? Existing ISPs have a de facto monopoly, because there isn't unlimited space to install backbones. Given that it is impossible to change that and have a free market, the next best thing is to regulate their market and forbid them from distorting the one built on top of it. > cheaper services for the end consumers Don't be naive: consumers will pay the same price for a shit-tier internet, those who can afford it will pay a premium for "regular" internet.
cirgue 9y ago
> I don't see what this fuss is all about. If Facebook wants to offer cheaper Internet with their services prioritized, why not? Incumbency advantage and the arbitrary consolidation of economic power. The one clear duty of a government in regulating an economy is to ensure competition. We had the same fight about railroads, and we had the same fight about telecom in the thirties. The economic principles have not changed since then, contrary to Telecom talking points.
- trophycase 9y ago
  It's role is more to minimize externalities, of which ensuring competition is a part.
  - cirgue 9y ago
    The how and why are extremely contentious for most externailities. That government has a duty to prevent certain kinds of anti-competitive behavior is one of the few points of general agreement.
losteric 9y ago
The "let websites subsidize users" meme is a red herring. Net neutrality is about killing competition in the consumer sector and further consolidating the corporate multimedia monopolies. No net neutrality = no competition in the ISP space; any new ISP has to build out a parallel network all the way to a fair ISP. Net neutrality is what guarantees that peered traffic is fairly prioritized. My first apartment was wired and run by an 8 man startup that operated a few contiguous apartment complexes. They connected the complexes to Comcast but dealt with all the last-mile (last block?) issues... but here's the kicker, Comcast also offered services in the area. My ISP only existed because Comcast was required to fairly prioritize their traffic. Without net neutrality, that ISP's traffic would have been deprioritized by Comcast.
s73ver 9y ago
Because most of us are not laissez faire people, and we absolutely do care, because in order for FB to deliver that, other things, potentially competing things, would have to be slowed down.

fredley 9y ago

Because the fear is that the internet will become like TV: you can't buy access to 'TV', despite the fact there's no technical limitation. You have to buy packages, from different providers in order to get what you want. You have to sign up to hefty subscription packages with loads of bundled shite just to watch 7 hours of Game of Thrones. Currently you buy access to the internet, and that's all internet, at equal priority. You can connect to my little $6 VPS or raspberry pi as easily as you can to Google or Facebook. And that's a great thing. If I want to get my show on TV, I have to negotiate with different channels and studios to try and get it broadcast, anywhere. And even then it would probably be on some shitty channel with tiny viewership, interspersed with ads for medication and financial scams. On the internet I can publish on my own terms, and anybody else with an internet connection can view it, on my terms. Undermining net neutrality threatens this. In the UK some ISPs are providing 'free unlimited access to WhatsApp'. It's just the start of a road that leads to the default model changes from paying for internet access, to most people getting free 'internet', restricted to just those companies who pay the ISP instead to provide free access. This is a slippery slope: once it starts, it will continue until smaller sites are no longer visible to people without 'premium' internet - who will be a minority. This is bad.

splintercell 9y ago
> Because the fear is that the internet will become like TV But I would rather take that than Internet becoming like TV, where govt can pass 'fairness doctrine' and other stuff, or restrict it significantly during war time. I'd rather trust economic incentives to keep Internet free than political incentives. If people are willing to pay for full coverage of the War, then even though govt is pressuring ISPs, it results in a losing prisoner's dilemma for ISPs (take for instance the popularity of Al Jazeera during Iraq War).
- fredley 9y ago
  That's an interesting perspective. Do you not think in times of war greater access to information is a great advantage of the internet? I'm curious as to why you would think that in wartime restricting information might be a good thing (other than persisting the propagation of propaganda!)
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    He doesn't think that; he thinks that Net neutrality is the first step on the road to government censorship of the Internet. I'm not sure by what mechanism.
    - splintercell 9y ago
      Exactly, but also remember, an exploit is an exploit, whether someone uses it or not. If by passing Net Neutrality laws, govt can take over the Internet, then govt can take over the internet at war time even without net neutrality laws. Net Neutrality laws simply make it easier for govt to use this exploit. A lot of HN audience is sympathetic to Canada or UK style restrictions on News channels, where govt is the final arbiter of whether a news channel is spreading lies or not. In America, the people are allowed to do that, and sure people paid a lot of money to listen to lies by NYT that Hillary was on her way to White House (I have even defended NYT's 2016 coverage to my pissed off liberal friends who wanted to cancel their subscription after the elections), but it's their choice. We can't allow govt to control media in the name of 'fairness'.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        How does enforcing net neutrality enable censorship? What does one thing have to do with the other? And what about the (in my opinion, more realistic in the United States) risk of private corporations such as Internet service providers restricting what their users see? Especially when you consider in how many cases your choices are one ISP or else no Internet access at all?
  - splintercell 9y ago
kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
Or you could just set up an antenna and enjoy the multitude of digital broadcast channels.
- drewmol 9y ago
  For now you can, but only until grandma dies. Once the daytime OTA TV watching voting group is small enough, Telco mafia will completely repurpose the spectrum. [1]https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/business/dealbook/tv-station-owners-rush-to-seize-on-relaxed-fcc-rules.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/business/dealbook/tv-s...
epmaybe 9y ago
Not discounting your argument, but HBO Now is cable-independent, so you can pay just for HBO and get Game of Thrones.
- mreome 9y ago
  This is exactly the point. Unless they can FedEx episodes to you, your Comcast/Verizon/Etc internet package could exclude (or slow to unusable levels) such cable-independent services, unless you pay for the Super-Premium internet package that includes them.
richardknop 9y ago
You have to sign up to hefty subscription packages with loads of bundled shite just to watch 7 hours of Game of Thrones. You don't have to. Most people watch GoT for free either from torrents or from free streaming websites.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mreome 9y ago
  Which will not be available on your Non-Neutral Comcast/Verizon/Etc Internet Package.
  - richardknop 9y ago
    Yes but this is only in US I guess. Rest of the world is not under Comcast/Verizon monopoly.

scaryclam 9y ago

If facebook start up a service that offers fast network access to their own stuff, that's fine, it wouldn't break net neutraility rules. If facebook pretend to be an ISP and actively degrade performance from other social networks, then they are breaking the rules. Spam filtering etc isn't against NN rules. No-one is delivering emails from marketing firms immediately, while holding back your emails from your aunt Mavis for an additional hour because she won't pay the premium service charge, even though they're coming from the same mailserver. All traffic that is getting delivered is being treated the same, as per NN. CDNs aren't paying for a fast lane, they're paying to be closer to the source of the request. That just makes the hops smaller, it doesn't change the priority of the delivery. If I hand deliver a postcard to you vs putting in the mail 500 miles away, I'm not getting preferential treatment from the postoffice, I'm just closer and hence more able to deliver it faster. Torrents are all slower than your capacity. That's a neutral network. Now, if some were unthrottled because someone paid off the ISP to do so, that would be against NN.

mattnewton 9y ago

As long as you are okay with the "next Facebook" coming from outside the US where they don't have to pay the ISP to reach their initial customers with a reasonable speeds.

grive 9y ago

> Easier to start an ISP The law of physics will gently back off and new ISPs will be able to install infrastructure on top of the existing one? Existing ISPs have a de facto monopoly, because there isn't unlimited space to install backbones. Given that it is impossible to change that and have a free market, the next best thing is to regulate their market and forbid them from distorting the one built on top of it. > cheaper services for the end consumers Don't be naive: consumers will pay the same price for a shit-tier internet, those who can afford it will pay a premium for "regular" internet.

cirgue 9y ago

> I don't see what this fuss is all about. If Facebook wants to offer cheaper Internet with their services prioritized, why not? Incumbency advantage and the arbitrary consolidation of economic power. The one clear duty of a government in regulating an economy is to ensure competition. We had the same fight about railroads, and we had the same fight about telecom in the thirties. The economic principles have not changed since then, contrary to Telecom talking points.

trophycase 9y ago
It's role is more to minimize externalities, of which ensuring competition is a part.
- cirgue 9y ago
  The how and why are extremely contentious for most externailities. That government has a duty to prevent certain kinds of anti-competitive behavior is one of the few points of general agreement.

losteric 9y ago

The "let websites subsidize users" meme is a red herring. Net neutrality is about killing competition in the consumer sector and further consolidating the corporate multimedia monopolies. No net neutrality = no competition in the ISP space; any new ISP has to build out a parallel network all the way to a fair ISP. Net neutrality is what guarantees that peered traffic is fairly prioritized. My first apartment was wired and run by an 8 man startup that operated a few contiguous apartment complexes. They connected the complexes to Comcast but dealt with all the last-mile (last block?) issues... but here's the kicker, Comcast also offered services in the area. My ISP only existed because Comcast was required to fairly prioritize their traffic. Without net neutrality, that ISP's traffic would have been deprioritized by Comcast.

s73ver 9y ago

Because most of us are not laissez faire people, and we absolutely do care, because in order for FB to deliver that, other things, potentially competing things, would have to be slowed down.