4 ms·

Ask HN: Is anyone here actually against Net Neutrality?

Is anyone here against Net Neutrality? Genuinely curious. It seems anyone who I've talked to is supportive of Net Neutrality or uninformed. If they're uninformed, as soon as I explain that Comcast will essentially be able to do the same thing as cell data providers, charge for overages, and mention how this might affect Netflix. They are quickly for Net Neutrality. The reason I ask is supposedly a vote is happening next week. http://mashable.com/2017/11/17/net-neutrality-thanksgiving/#85OkRymkMmqG https://www.battleforthenet.com/

quuquuquu 9y ago
"I'll be against it if you pay me enough money"- every person who works/collaborates with a company that does things against the public interest
ry4n413 9y ago
Is Google Fiber expansion ramping back up? It seemed prior to the election they were not looking to continue the costly expansion, but because of the trump administration and deregulation they are now expanding (Louisville). The thing the Louisville expansion shows is the difficulty ATT gives new competitors in the area.
maxharris 9y ago
I'm against net neutrality. I'm also against the local, state and federal regulations that gives Comcast and similar companies any competitive advantage over new entrants. The cable companies actively lobby to maintain things like local taxes and regulations on communication infrastructure (literally - you have to pay extra taxes to put cables up on the poles) because this creates an additional barrier to competition. We don't currently have a telecommunications market. It has been sectioned off and divided up, and rolling out new ideas and services is basically illegal: you have to convince a ton of people in government of what you plan to do first. And so progress takes a lot more time than it would be if people were free in this respect. --- Disruption is coming, though. For example, gigabit fiber is a reality for me here in Seattle where population density is high. And satellites that sit relatively low in the sky above us promise to improve things _globally_! (This is very different from existing satellite internet services, which are very latent because the current satellites sit much higher up in the sky.)
- borplk 9y ago
  I didn't quite understand why you are against net neutrality.
  - maxharris 9y ago
    Because it's just another intervention, more rules. And what I'm saying is that the rules themselves are the problem in this case. Ever have a piece of busted code, where you can see the underlying problem? And instead of just fixing that, you end up just piling on more code to patch the problem? Then time goes by, and something changes underneath you - a requirement, for example. And now that hack you did is part of the problem. That's what I know is going to happen with these net neutrality rules.
    - TheAsprngHacker 9y ago
      Are you a libertarian? You remind me of John Stossel. https://youtu.be/5hqzpD9drdc?t=5m29s https://youtu.be/5hqzpD9drdc?t=5m29s
      - maxharris 9y ago
        I'm not actually a libertarian either. Of course the particular reasons depend on what kind of libertarian you're talking about, but I have different and serious disagreements with all of them. For example: I'm not an anarchist. I don't think there can be a market in courts, police, armies. (Yes, I've read Nozick.) Another example: I don't think that non-intervention is the fundamental on which to base a proper foreign policy. A third example: I don't think that fractional reserve banking is a form of fraud. Or that gold is the ultimate currency. Fourth example: I neither lionize nor demonize the police as an institution. Civil asset forfeiture is an abomination, to be sure, as is police racism, brutality, and their present "warrior mentality." These are definitely problems, to be sure. However, they are neither solved by markets, nor by simply eliminating a necessary and important pillar of society. Fifth example: Libertarians seem to despise the idea of intellectual property. While I have seen my share of asinine software patents, I generally think that IP is extremely important to protect. I think it's proper for the government to protect innovators (not as a matter of utilitarian principle, but rather as a matter of justice.) I could keep going from here, but that should be sufficient... I'm no libertarian!
tabeth 9y ago
I feel that it's kind of hypocritical to be to be OK with companys like Google and Facebook to have more and more leverage on the internet and information in general, yet care about net neutrality. That being said, I'm for net neutrality and also for the breaking up of Google and Facebook.
- muzani 9y ago
  The difference is that it's a choice whether to use Google and Facebook. A lot of people are disagreeing with Facebook and there's a movement to gradually move off it. Google at least tries to appear neutral, letting people search for everything short of child porn, even the highly illegal or dangerous. CDNs seem exceptionally powerful though.
  - tabeth 9y ago
    > The difference is that it's a choice whether to use Google and Facebook. This is normally used as the main argument. I disagree. That's like saying you have a choice on whether or not you use electricity, which is technically true. How much of the popular web could you really use if you didn't use anything that touched Facebook or Google?
cdoxsey 9y ago
> If they're uninformed, as soon as I explain that Comcast will essentially be able to do the same thing as cell data providers, charge for overages, and mention how this might affect Netflix. They are quickly for Net Neutrality. Except its all a lot more complicated than that. Because its impossible to pass actual legislation anymore, ISPs were apparently re-classified under Title II of the telecommunications act. An archaic, byzantine, 1930s era law, the text of which can be found here: https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf. I have no idea what most of the stuff in that document means, and I have no idea what the ramifications of any changes to it would be. I don't want a company like Comcast blocking my ability to visit certain sites or use certain apps. But I'm also concerned about the Government attempting to stifle free expression. Historically we've had all kinds of rules governing the radio and television (what you can and can't say on TV, the fairness doctrine, etc) so I don't think those concerns are entirely unfounded... But those are just ideas and I'm not sure the debate we're having on these questions has anything to do with the decisions actually being made. The laws in this country are designed to be unintelligible because (1) it allows politicians to make absurd, empty promises, because its impossible to know what was actually passed and (2) it gives bureaucrats total discretion in how laws are enforced so that (3) they can leverage laws for political favors and to punish their enemies. And that's what I'm against: a bazillion banana republic laws which no one can possibly follow.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Cable has been a free for all, only broadcast TV has had legal decency standards. Advertisers prevented basic cable from swearin'.
- gremlinsinc 9y ago
  You're seriously against the Fairness doctrine? It did not stifle free expression, if anything it gave ALL sides a seat at the table, where ALL opinions/view points had to get equal share. Instead REAL news has been replaced with Op/Eds and Echo chambers where people only hear what they want to hear, or what the government and corporations want them to hear. If you call something 'news' then it better damn well be 'news' and not someone's fucking opinion.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
miguelrochefort 9y ago
Absolutely. Net neutrality effectively prevents a philanthropist from launching satellites making Wikipedia or Khan Academy (but nothing else) available for free to everyone. What is worse than net neutrality are artificial monopolies given to ISPs.

quuquuquu 9y ago

"I'll be against it if you pay me enough money"- every person who works/collaborates with a company that does things against the public interest

ry4n413 9y ago

Is Google Fiber expansion ramping back up? It seemed prior to the election they were not looking to continue the costly expansion, but because of the trump administration and deregulation they are now expanding (Louisville). The thing the Louisville expansion shows is the difficulty ATT gives new competitors in the area.

maxharris 9y ago

I'm against net neutrality. I'm also against the local, state and federal regulations that gives Comcast and similar companies any competitive advantage over new entrants. The cable companies actively lobby to maintain things like local taxes and regulations on communication infrastructure (literally - you have to pay extra taxes to put cables up on the poles) because this creates an additional barrier to competition. We don't currently have a telecommunications market. It has been sectioned off and divided up, and rolling out new ideas and services is basically illegal: you have to convince a ton of people in government of what you plan to do first. And so progress takes a lot more time than it would be if people were free in this respect. --- Disruption is coming, though. For example, gigabit fiber is a reality for me here in Seattle where population density is high. And satellites that sit relatively low in the sky above us promise to improve things _globally_! (This is very different from existing satellite internet services, which are very latent because the current satellites sit much higher up in the sky.)

borplk 9y ago
I didn't quite understand why you are against net neutrality.
- maxharris 9y ago
  Because it's just another intervention, more rules. And what I'm saying is that the rules themselves are the problem in this case. Ever have a piece of busted code, where you can see the underlying problem? And instead of just fixing that, you end up just piling on more code to patch the problem? Then time goes by, and something changes underneath you - a requirement, for example. And now that hack you did is part of the problem. That's what I know is going to happen with these net neutrality rules.
  - TheAsprngHacker 9y ago
    Are you a libertarian? You remind me of John Stossel. https://youtu.be/5hqzpD9drdc?t=5m29s https://youtu.be/5hqzpD9drdc?t=5m29s
    - maxharris 9y ago
      I'm not actually a libertarian either. Of course the particular reasons depend on what kind of libertarian you're talking about, but I have different and serious disagreements with all of them. For example: I'm not an anarchist. I don't think there can be a market in courts, police, armies. (Yes, I've read Nozick.) Another example: I don't think that non-intervention is the fundamental on which to base a proper foreign policy. A third example: I don't think that fractional reserve banking is a form of fraud. Or that gold is the ultimate currency. Fourth example: I neither lionize nor demonize the police as an institution. Civil asset forfeiture is an abomination, to be sure, as is police racism, brutality, and their present "warrior mentality." These are definitely problems, to be sure. However, they are neither solved by markets, nor by simply eliminating a necessary and important pillar of society. Fifth example: Libertarians seem to despise the idea of intellectual property. While I have seen my share of asinine software patents, I generally think that IP is extremely important to protect. I think it's proper for the government to protect innovators (not as a matter of utilitarian principle, but rather as a matter of justice.) I could keep going from here, but that should be sufficient... I'm no libertarian!

tabeth 9y ago

I feel that it's kind of hypocritical to be to be OK with companys like Google and Facebook to have more and more leverage on the internet and information in general, yet care about net neutrality. That being said, I'm for net neutrality and also for the breaking up of Google and Facebook.

muzani 9y ago
The difference is that it's a choice whether to use Google and Facebook. A lot of people are disagreeing with Facebook and there's a movement to gradually move off it. Google at least tries to appear neutral, letting people search for everything short of child porn, even the highly illegal or dangerous. CDNs seem exceptionally powerful though.
- tabeth 9y ago
  > The difference is that it's a choice whether to use Google and Facebook. This is normally used as the main argument. I disagree. That's like saying you have a choice on whether or not you use electricity, which is technically true. How much of the popular web could you really use if you didn't use anything that touched Facebook or Google?

cdoxsey 9y ago

> If they're uninformed, as soon as I explain that Comcast will essentially be able to do the same thing as cell data providers, charge for overages, and mention how this might affect Netflix. They are quickly for Net Neutrality. Except its all a lot more complicated than that. Because its impossible to pass actual legislation anymore, ISPs were apparently re-classified under Title II of the telecommunications act. An archaic, byzantine, 1930s era law, the text of which can be found here: https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf. I have no idea what most of the stuff in that document means, and I have no idea what the ramifications of any changes to it would be. I don't want a company like Comcast blocking my ability to visit certain sites or use certain apps. But I'm also concerned about the Government attempting to stifle free expression. Historically we've had all kinds of rules governing the radio and television (what you can and can't say on TV, the fairness doctrine, etc) so I don't think those concerns are entirely unfounded... But those are just ideas and I'm not sure the debate we're having on these questions has anything to do with the decisions actually being made. The laws in this country are designed to be unintelligible because (1) it allows politicians to make absurd, empty promises, because its impossible to know what was actually passed and (2) it gives bureaucrats total discretion in how laws are enforced so that (3) they can leverage laws for political favors and to punish their enemies. And that's what I'm against: a bazillion banana republic laws which no one can possibly follow.

maxerickson 9y ago
Cable has been a free for all, only broadcast TV has had legal decency standards. Advertisers prevented basic cable from swearin'.
gremlinsinc 9y ago
You're seriously against the Fairness doctrine? It did not stifle free expression, if anything it gave ALL sides a seat at the table, where ALL opinions/view points had to get equal share. Instead REAL news has been replaced with Op/Eds and Echo chambers where people only hear what they want to hear, or what the government and corporations want them to hear. If you call something 'news' then it better damn well be 'news' and not someone's fucking opinion.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

miguelrochefort 9y ago

Absolutely. Net neutrality effectively prevents a philanthropist from launching satellites making Wikipedia or Khan Academy (but nothing else) available for free to everyone. What is worse than net neutrality are artificial monopolies given to ISPs.