5 ms·

I hate how everyone on hn and reddit just accepts "nn is good" unconditionally.Beleive it or not, if it were such an open-and-shut case, it would not be an issu

I hate how everyone on hn and reddit just accepts "nn is good" unconditionally.Beleive it or not, if it were such an open-and-shut case, it would not be an issue. You don't see anybody trying to legalize murder, do you? So at the risk of repeating myself, I want to know what is the problem with the current internet that nn will solve, and why do you consider it to be such a world-ending issue, above things like "hundreds of people being regularly murdered by some random gun-toting lunatic". I present to you my arguments why nn is bad, just as a thought exercise. 1. The company that builds and operates the network has a right to charge for it as it sees fit. 2. If competition is limited in the ISP space, that is due to over-regulation like granting monopolies. Instead of piling on more regulation, we should solve the root cause and do things that promote more competition. NN doesn't do that in the least. 3. Internet infrastructure is expensive to build and operate, especially wireless networks. And bandwidth and capacity is not unlimited. If Verizon thinks they can provide a better service by limiting 4k streaming over LTE, let them. If you don't like it, switch to an operator who provides a better service for you. I would prefer to see arguments for NN, not responses to my arguments. My arguments may be poorly thought out, but my main point is we need solid discussion on this topic and I have only seen vague bullshit till now.

krylon 9y ago
I am sorry you get downvoted so much. Just to be clear, I think net neutrality is a Good Thing(tm), but your comment is certainly thought-provoking. Having a discussion with reasonable people even - no! especially! - if I do not agree with them is part of what I like about this community so much.
Y7ZCQtNo39 9y ago
Found the ISP shill. Literally the only people backing anti-NN are the ISP's. It's so blatantly and clearly to the benefit of ISPs. I don't know any consumer that isn't in favor of NN. Call it bandwagoning, or consider it not to analytical to conclude what the intended purpose of anti-NN policy is based on who is for and against it, but the only reason why we're having this discussion is because, time and time again, ISP's push legislation or Republicans appoint FCC regulators to dismantle NN protection. There is no 'other side' to this. It's pushed directly by the ISP's for their own benefit. Consumers get nothing. It's incredibly obvious.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  > Found the ISP shill. WTF! I'm literally trying to have a logical discussion about it. You're the one who isn't able to defend her position.
- sctb 9y ago
  Could you please take a look at the guidelines, which ask you not to do this? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - Y7ZCQtNo39 9y ago
    Fair enough. The first four words of my post do violate the policy, but the following words, which make up 95% of the content, do add to the discussion and make an important point.
    - sctb 9y ago
      Notice which four words were quoted in the only follow-up comment! These things punch way above their weight, which is why they need to be excluded.
jankiel 9y ago
I agree with all your points, but: 1. ...but why give them ability to charge based on what you're doing with access they give you? It's like your electric power provider would charge you more if you have a blacklisted freezer... 2. ...but maybe let's start by lowering the bar for new ISPs and getting rid of monopolies instead of giving them more means to squeeze more money? How getting rid of NN helps with that? Google couldn't get into that market. 3. ...but what if my provider throttles wired network, not wireless, and not 4k, but full HD? What if they throttle my twitch, because they got a deal with google to serve unlimited access to Youtube Gaming at the cost of limiting access to twitch? Sure, change IPS! Whoops, there's no competition in my area. What now?
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  > 1. ...but why give them ability to charge based on what you're doing with access they give you? It's like your electric power provider would charge you more if you have a blacklisted freezer... The electricity analogy doesn't work because the electricity company literally cannot figure out what brand of appliance you're using. Again, if you enter into a contract with your electricity company locking you into only running apple chargers, that's on you. No regulation needed. > 2. ...but maybe let's start by lowering the bar for new ISPs and getting rid of monopolies instead of giving them more means to squeeze more money? How getting rid of NN helps with that? Google couldn't get into that market. Makes sense. Except nobody's getting rid of nn. They are trying to prevent nn from being introduced. Till now, there hasn't been a concept of nn enforced by the regulatory authority. So no change in status quo, as far as nn is concerned. And Google did get into the market without over-reaching regulation like nn. It seems logical to me to continue the current state, it has allowed much innovation to occur. > 3. ...but what if my provider throttles wired network, not wireless, and not 4k, but full HD? What if they throttle my twitch, because they got a deal with google to serve unlimited access to Youtube Gaming at the cost of limiting access to twitch? Sure, change IPS! Whoops, there's no competition in my area. What now? Fully agree. This indicates the actual problem with ISPs today. They are operating as monopolies or duopolies or I'd even say cartels. This monopolistic behavior must be tackled. But enforcing nn will be like throwing the baby out with the bath-water. As I said earlier, my points are not very well thought out. I really want to hear about problems that will get solved by enforcing nn. Thanks for responding, and not just downvoting.
steev 9y ago
I agree - all the talk about "this is the end of the internet as we know it" makes it really hard to understand what is _really_ going on. I get the sense a lot of the rhetoric I see on reddit and hn are people reading blog posts or other people's opinions on those sites and simply rehashing them. To be clear, I get everyone's concern and if what everyone is saying is true, I agree 100% this seems bad. However, all the hysteria makes it hard to get a grip on the facts
thomasfortes 9y ago
I know that you asked for arguments pro nn, but I'll try to tackle your 3 points at once... No, they don't have the right, their infrastructure covers physical space and is in the same category as power grids and sewers, you cannot have a "free market" because the world has space limitations, I would hate to live in a street with a thousand energy cables, ten different providers of sanitation systems and in a permanent construction zone. Since there's no feasible way to guarantee a real free market, they need to be regulated to avoid the exploitation of consumers that don't have other choices. And even if we have the choice of multiple ISPs providing the last mile, we will need to keep some regulation on companies that sell the bandwidth to the ISPs. Physical infrastructure is a different beast than digital goods, companies shouldn't have the right to exploit consumers just because there's no feasible way to provide more competition.
falcolas 9y ago
These are, frankly, crap arguments because they flat out ignore one major factor - we're already paying for access to the internet. So is Google, Netflix, and every other company out there. None of this is, in a NN world, free in the first place; nobody is getting a free ride on someone else's network. > I have only seen vague bullshit till now. Then you haven't been paying attention. Sorry, that's rude, but it's the truth. There have been plenty of well thought out and presented arguments created by the EFF and by a number of pundants across the internet. Even Google supported NN before they decided they can afford the double dipping in exchange for a higher barrier to competition. Do more than berate people on a forum for being angry about the very foundations of a free (as in speech) internet being torn asunder; do some basic research for yourself and you'll find them. Alternatively, just look at the rest of the world for a view of a non-NN future. ISPs have already demonstrated that they will use the lack of enforced neutrality to promote their own services in an unfair way, such as applying artificial limits on Netflix but not their own on-demand video services. They raise the prices of internet services while simultaneously removing our options. How is that in any way good for consumers?
Sacho 9y ago
I don't think nn is good, but I think the current situation in the US drives people towards solutions like nn. Here are some reasons why you would want nn over the previous status quo: - The company that builds and operates the network has been granted substantial subsidy; the government subsidizing it has a right to make demands to the quality and pricing of the product. - The company is interested in maximizing profits from the product; the government is interested in providing the service to the maximum number of people. This includes places where laying infrastructure is not cost-effective, i.e. sparsely populated rural areas far from the current network. The company would not be willing to build infrastructure for them, so the government subsidizes it, but expects a certain measure of quality in return(back to argument 1) - The de-facto situation is a monopoly, and the Telco Act is designed to deal with such a situation. While you say "just fix the root cause", it's not obvious how to do that. Assuming that new ISPs will pop up, there will still be a painful transition period. During this period, what are people supposed to do? NN shifts the "harm" from the users to the companies, which is a short and medium-term net-positive for the users. And what if no ISPs pop up? You're throwing people's livelihood in jeopardy on a gamble. This is essentially the "internet is a public good" argument. For these reasons you want some measure of regulation where you can provide internet connectivity to the maximum number of people. This is very reminiscent to phones, so it's natural to reach for the Telco Act. I think NN is a painful compromise for the current situation the US is in. I think the only obvious endgame of NN is essentially nationalizing ISPs - what are you going to do in the long term when they refuse to provide better internet because they can't justify the cost? NN will be a fairly powerful tool for them to eliminate any possible competition, or as a MAD weapon to enforce their turfs(look at the clauses about compliance - they are regulated on a local level, guess where ISPs have the most lobbying power?). On the other hand, the situation in the US "as-is" is pretty shit, and people want some kind of assurance for the future of their internet access. That assurance can only realistically come from the government. I am not sure whether I would vote for or against NN if I had to, even though I opposite it on principle(I don't think it's a good solution). Luckily, I don't have to deal with such a problem. In our country, the nationalized phone company builds internet lines, and leases them to competing ISPs(they are also allowed to build their own). This has worked so far, but the situation is vastly different from the US.
intherdfield 9y ago
Hi, I'm your ISP. Now that I'm not limited by net neutrality over-regulation, life is going to be better for you. Hacker news and those other niche new sites you visit are niche sites and as such have a lower routing priority. If you would like to prioritize them with full enhanced speed, please upgrade to niche news site plan. An additional $9.99 per month. Sorry, they're so slow right now. You've noticed all your https traffic is slow now? Easy fix: install this software which proxies all your HTTPS traffic through our fast and secure gateway. This lets us add "supercookies" to all your web requests. We then sell your name and address to operators of sites you visit. And what's great is that this software also allows us to insert our own advertisements into the websites you visit. Now we can finally take revenue from Google and Facebook and become our own advertising empire. We've wanted Google-money for a long time, but we've never had a way to force ads on users because we don't offer compelling services. With the recent increases in Netflix and YouTube prices, we recommend you subscribe to ISPFlix. It's an additional $24.99 per month which is half the price of Netflix. We've wanted Netflix money for a long time, but we've never had a way to force users to use our services over Netflix. Now we love cord cutters. Oh, you've noticed the decreased traffic to the website you operate? That might be due to your site being so much slower for users. If you'd like your site to be fast again, please pay an additional expedited content service fee. It's an additional $299 per month. Oh, it looks like you have a smart thermostat installed. That's an extra $9.99 per month for the home automation service plan. We'll block packets that look like they're from your thermostat for now. We should let you know we offer a full home automation and security product. It's a terrible product that is not competitive. See? Regulation to make sure we won't block or slow down sites or alter your traffic just doesn't make sense. It's totally not important to anyone, but we are going to promise we won't block or slow down sites. Our terms and conditions may change at any time.
mcntsh 9y ago
> If competition is limited in the ISP space, that is due to over-regulation like granting monopolies. Instead of piling on more regulation, we should solve the root cause and do things that promote more competition. NN doesn't do that in the least. Buying land for fiber lines, and building out all of the necessary infrastructure to make that happen is not something just anyone can do. Even Google backed out of that race! How much competition can there actually be with ISPs?
fenwick67 9y ago
> "You don't see anybody trying to legalize murder, do you?" You must've never been to Texas, home of stand-your-ground laws and the death penalty.
wfo 9y ago
Your points have all been soundly refuted elsewhere in the thread as they should, but >You don't see anybody trying to legalize murder, do you? Actually, you do. Many Republican state congresses are trying to make it legal to murder protesters by e.g. ramming them with your car. Net Neutrality is pretty much as cut and dried as this: there are people who oppose it, but that position is indefensible. "People defend it therefore there must be good arguments in favor of it" just isn't always true. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/08/the-charlottesville-car-attack-might-have-been-legal-under-these-republican-proposals/ http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/08/the-charlottesvi...

krylon 9y ago

I am sorry you get downvoted so much. Just to be clear, I think net neutrality is a Good Thing(tm), but your comment is certainly thought-provoking. Having a discussion with reasonable people even - no! especially! - if I do not agree with them is part of what I like about this community so much.

Y7ZCQtNo39 9y ago

Found the ISP shill. Literally the only people backing anti-NN are the ISP's. It's so blatantly and clearly to the benefit of ISPs. I don't know any consumer that isn't in favor of NN. Call it bandwagoning, or consider it not to analytical to conclude what the intended purpose of anti-NN policy is based on who is for and against it, but the only reason why we're having this discussion is because, time and time again, ISP's push legislation or Republicans appoint FCC regulators to dismantle NN protection. There is no 'other side' to this. It's pushed directly by the ISP's for their own benefit. Consumers get nothing. It's incredibly obvious.

dingo_bat 9y ago
> Found the ISP shill. WTF! I'm literally trying to have a logical discussion about it. You're the one who isn't able to defend her position.
sctb 9y ago
Could you please take a look at the guidelines, which ask you not to do this? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Y7ZCQtNo39 9y ago
  Fair enough. The first four words of my post do violate the policy, but the following words, which make up 95% of the content, do add to the discussion and make an important point.
  - sctb 9y ago
    Notice which four words were quoted in the only follow-up comment! These things punch way above their weight, which is why they need to be excluded.

jankiel 9y ago

I agree with all your points, but: 1. ...but why give them ability to charge based on what you're doing with access they give you? It's like your electric power provider would charge you more if you have a blacklisted freezer... 2. ...but maybe let's start by lowering the bar for new ISPs and getting rid of monopolies instead of giving them more means to squeeze more money? How getting rid of NN helps with that? Google couldn't get into that market. 3. ...but what if my provider throttles wired network, not wireless, and not 4k, but full HD? What if they throttle my twitch, because they got a deal with google to serve unlimited access to Youtube Gaming at the cost of limiting access to twitch? Sure, change IPS! Whoops, there's no competition in my area. What now?

dingo_bat 9y ago
> 1. ...but why give them ability to charge based on what you're doing with access they give you? It's like your electric power provider would charge you more if you have a blacklisted freezer... The electricity analogy doesn't work because the electricity company literally cannot figure out what brand of appliance you're using. Again, if you enter into a contract with your electricity company locking you into only running apple chargers, that's on you. No regulation needed. > 2. ...but maybe let's start by lowering the bar for new ISPs and getting rid of monopolies instead of giving them more means to squeeze more money? How getting rid of NN helps with that? Google couldn't get into that market. Makes sense. Except nobody's getting rid of nn. They are trying to prevent nn from being introduced. Till now, there hasn't been a concept of nn enforced by the regulatory authority. So no change in status quo, as far as nn is concerned. And Google did get into the market without over-reaching regulation like nn. It seems logical to me to continue the current state, it has allowed much innovation to occur. > 3. ...but what if my provider throttles wired network, not wireless, and not 4k, but full HD? What if they throttle my twitch, because they got a deal with google to serve unlimited access to Youtube Gaming at the cost of limiting access to twitch? Sure, change IPS! Whoops, there's no competition in my area. What now? Fully agree. This indicates the actual problem with ISPs today. They are operating as monopolies or duopolies or I'd even say cartels. This monopolistic behavior must be tackled. But enforcing nn will be like throwing the baby out with the bath-water. As I said earlier, my points are not very well thought out. I really want to hear about problems that will get solved by enforcing nn. Thanks for responding, and not just downvoting.

steev 9y ago

I agree - all the talk about "this is the end of the internet as we know it" makes it really hard to understand what is _really_ going on. I get the sense a lot of the rhetoric I see on reddit and hn are people reading blog posts or other people's opinions on those sites and simply rehashing them. To be clear, I get everyone's concern and if what everyone is saying is true, I agree 100% this seems bad. However, all the hysteria makes it hard to get a grip on the facts

thomasfortes 9y ago

I know that you asked for arguments pro nn, but I'll try to tackle your 3 points at once... No, they don't have the right, their infrastructure covers physical space and is in the same category as power grids and sewers, you cannot have a "free market" because the world has space limitations, I would hate to live in a street with a thousand energy cables, ten different providers of sanitation systems and in a permanent construction zone. Since there's no feasible way to guarantee a real free market, they need to be regulated to avoid the exploitation of consumers that don't have other choices. And even if we have the choice of multiple ISPs providing the last mile, we will need to keep some regulation on companies that sell the bandwidth to the ISPs. Physical infrastructure is a different beast than digital goods, companies shouldn't have the right to exploit consumers just because there's no feasible way to provide more competition.

falcolas 9y ago

These are, frankly, crap arguments because they flat out ignore one major factor - we're already paying for access to the internet. So is Google, Netflix, and every other company out there. None of this is, in a NN world, free in the first place; nobody is getting a free ride on someone else's network. > I have only seen vague bullshit till now. Then you haven't been paying attention. Sorry, that's rude, but it's the truth. There have been plenty of well thought out and presented arguments created by the EFF and by a number of pundants across the internet. Even Google supported NN before they decided they can afford the double dipping in exchange for a higher barrier to competition. Do more than berate people on a forum for being angry about the very foundations of a free (as in speech) internet being torn asunder; do some basic research for yourself and you'll find them. Alternatively, just look at the rest of the world for a view of a non-NN future. ISPs have already demonstrated that they will use the lack of enforced neutrality to promote their own services in an unfair way, such as applying artificial limits on Netflix but not their own on-demand video services. They raise the prices of internet services while simultaneously removing our options. How is that in any way good for consumers?

Sacho 9y ago

I don't think nn is good, but I think the current situation in the US drives people towards solutions like nn. Here are some reasons why you would want nn over the previous status quo: - The company that builds and operates the network has been granted substantial subsidy; the government subsidizing it has a right to make demands to the quality and pricing of the product. - The company is interested in maximizing profits from the product; the government is interested in providing the service to the maximum number of people. This includes places where laying infrastructure is not cost-effective, i.e. sparsely populated rural areas far from the current network. The company would not be willing to build infrastructure for them, so the government subsidizes it, but expects a certain measure of quality in return(back to argument 1) - The de-facto situation is a monopoly, and the Telco Act is designed to deal with such a situation. While you say "just fix the root cause", it's not obvious how to do that. Assuming that new ISPs will pop up, there will still be a painful transition period. During this period, what are people supposed to do? NN shifts the "harm" from the users to the companies, which is a short and medium-term net-positive for the users. And what if no ISPs pop up? You're throwing people's livelihood in jeopardy on a gamble. This is essentially the "internet is a public good" argument. For these reasons you want some measure of regulation where you can provide internet connectivity to the maximum number of people. This is very reminiscent to phones, so it's natural to reach for the Telco Act. I think NN is a painful compromise for the current situation the US is in. I think the only obvious endgame of NN is essentially nationalizing ISPs - what are you going to do in the long term when they refuse to provide better internet because they can't justify the cost? NN will be a fairly powerful tool for them to eliminate any possible competition, or as a MAD weapon to enforce their turfs(look at the clauses about compliance - they are regulated on a local level, guess where ISPs have the most lobbying power?). On the other hand, the situation in the US "as-is" is pretty shit, and people want some kind of assurance for the future of their internet access. That assurance can only realistically come from the government. I am not sure whether I would vote for or against NN if I had to, even though I opposite it on principle(I don't think it's a good solution). Luckily, I don't have to deal with such a problem. In our country, the nationalized phone company builds internet lines, and leases them to competing ISPs(they are also allowed to build their own). This has worked so far, but the situation is vastly different from the US.

intherdfield 9y ago

Hi, I'm your ISP. Now that I'm not limited by net neutrality over-regulation, life is going to be better for you. Hacker news and those other niche new sites you visit are niche sites and as such have a lower routing priority. If you would like to prioritize them with full enhanced speed, please upgrade to niche news site plan. An additional $9.99 per month. Sorry, they're so slow right now. You've noticed all your https traffic is slow now? Easy fix: install this software which proxies all your HTTPS traffic through our fast and secure gateway. This lets us add "supercookies" to all your web requests. We then sell your name and address to operators of sites you visit. And what's great is that this software also allows us to insert our own advertisements into the websites you visit. Now we can finally take revenue from Google and Facebook and become our own advertising empire. We've wanted Google-money for a long time, but we've never had a way to force ads on users because we don't offer compelling services. With the recent increases in Netflix and YouTube prices, we recommend you subscribe to ISPFlix. It's an additional $24.99 per month which is half the price of Netflix. We've wanted Netflix money for a long time, but we've never had a way to force users to use our services over Netflix. Now we love cord cutters. Oh, you've noticed the decreased traffic to the website you operate? That might be due to your site being so much slower for users. If you'd like your site to be fast again, please pay an additional expedited content service fee. It's an additional $299 per month. Oh, it looks like you have a smart thermostat installed. That's an extra $9.99 per month for the home automation service plan. We'll block packets that look like they're from your thermostat for now. We should let you know we offer a full home automation and security product. It's a terrible product that is not competitive. See? Regulation to make sure we won't block or slow down sites or alter your traffic just doesn't make sense. It's totally not important to anyone, but we are going to promise we won't block or slow down sites. Our terms and conditions may change at any time.

mcntsh 9y ago

> If competition is limited in the ISP space, that is due to over-regulation like granting monopolies. Instead of piling on more regulation, we should solve the root cause and do things that promote more competition. NN doesn't do that in the least. Buying land for fiber lines, and building out all of the necessary infrastructure to make that happen is not something just anyone can do. Even Google backed out of that race! How much competition can there actually be with ISPs?

fenwick67 9y ago

> "You don't see anybody trying to legalize murder, do you?" You must've never been to Texas, home of stand-your-ground laws and the death penalty.

wfo 9y ago

Your points have all been soundly refuted elsewhere in the thread as they should, but >You don't see anybody trying to legalize murder, do you? Actually, you do. Many Republican state congresses are trying to make it legal to murder protesters by e.g. ramming them with your car. Net Neutrality is pretty much as cut and dried as this: there are people who oppose it, but that position is indefensible. "People defend it therefore there must be good arguments in favor of it" just isn't always true. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/08/the-charlottesville-car-attack-might-have-been-legal-under-these-republican-proposals/ http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/08/the-charlottesvi...