9 ms·

Startups Seek Tech Solution to Net Neutrality Repeal

18 points by Vannatter 9y ago

Danihan 9y ago
Isn't the solution just more ISP competition?
- Jonnax 9y ago
  Lawmakers don't want that because they get paid lobby money from ISPs
- SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
  New tech that removes or bypasses existing barriers to entry (like the need to physically lay cable from house to house) is one possible way to create competition.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  That's easy to say, but there's the well-known last mine problem. How many separate companies will be willing to run cabling to your home just to compete bitterly with an incumbent? And even if that may happen in your neighborhood, will it happen nationwide? What about rural areas where you're lucky to have one fast ISP?
  - nawitus 9y ago
    In other countries there are laws which force the cable owner to rent the last mile to any ISP.
    - Chaebixi 9y ago
      I'd guess countries with that kind of sensible regulation also can manage net neutrality regulations...
  - briandear 9y ago
    Perhaps we should be innovating in that last mile problem.. Surely there are smart people working to engineer tech to avoid running cable.
    - Chaebixi 9y ago
      The problem with wireless is that it's like sharing a single cable with everyone else. Yes, there are a lot of innovations to make that workable, but you're never going to get the same bandwidth and reliability as a cabled system.
- KajMagnus 9y ago
  But that's not going to happen any time soon? (in the US.) They try to unfairly kill off any competition, as far as I've read. Instead, what if a decentralized web is a safer solution. Recently here at HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16005961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16005961 "Decentralization Roundup for 2017"
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  A local ISP in a semi-rural area has been putting their business on the line for over a decade now to build out broadband in the area. They're targeting under-served, denser housing swaths of the region where there is little to no broadband competition. The price tag for the initial stage of the build out is in the several millions of dollars. The first-stage service area would be under 1,000 homes. They hope to charge around $100/mo for the service. So, you do the math. Is that a business model you'd want to try to live off of?
  - briandear 9y ago
    A startup like Mattermark raised 17 million simply to aggregate data about startups. Surely investors would be interested in an actual business with a clearly defined business model — or any business model for that matter. There’s a graveyard of startups that were able to raise a lot of money and not do basically anything other than raise more money. Didn’t Leap raise a billion dollars for a VR headset thingy that hasn’t even shipped? Surely there’s 50 million for an ISP startup. With the ability to be something beyond a common utility, there is going to be interest in investing in ISP innovation — especially tech that provides fiber speed without ripping up the landscape.
- cmsonger 9y ago
  The problem is that the ISP business meets the textbook definition of a natural monopoly, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
- brndnmtthws 9y ago
  In a non-corrupt market, yes.
- msla 9y ago
  That is, to be very generous, a long time horizon solution to a near-term problem. ISP competition, assuming it's going to happen at all, will not happen quickly, and will be challenged by existing ISPs using a mix of legal and competitive methods.
brndnmtthws 9y ago
VPNs for everyone?
- turc1656 9y ago
  Yep. Beat me to making the comment. This is already a solved problem. A VPN solves this problem quite well. Only exception I see is overall bandwidth usage. They'll obviously still see the total amount of traffic going across their lines and may throttle that, but that would apply to everyone equally, which I don't have an issue with. Since they won't be able to see the traffic due to encryption, they can't inhibit/block certain sites or services. Nor can they inject ads or anything else into the HTML responses. They would also be essentially blind and unable to build a profile about you to sell.
  - thefreeman 9y ago
    That doesn't work if they decide to throttle anything not on the "whitelist" of high priority sites based on your plan.
    - turc1656 9y ago
      i don't believe that's true. they won't be able to see what you are accessing other than the VPN as long as you are routing all traffic through it (which you should be). so it's all or nothing for them. They can't really pick and choose what to prioritize because they can't see what it is due to the encryption.
      - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
        They can easily choose what to prioritize. VPNs won't be prioritized, so any traffic over them will get slowed down.
        turc1656 9y ago
        Right, I think we're talking about two different things. Yes, they can choose to not prioritize the VPN traffic. But they won't be able to, for example, slow down Netflix because they have a competing on-demand service because they won't be able to see the traffic. So it's all or nothing when on the VPN. All of your traffic is throttled or none of it will be.
isaac_is_goat 9y ago
So looks like they were right when they said it would encourage innovation. Go figure.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  Some "innovation" is a waste of resources. Specifically, the innovation required to work around broken policy.
  - turc1656 9y ago
    Or fixing an already solved problem. Using a VPN addresses basically everything they are trying to fix.
    - runako 9y ago
      ISPs can trivially prioritize content from preferred providers while throttling all other traffic, including VPN traffic. VPNs do not solve this problem.
      - turc1656 9y ago
        yeah but all your internet traffic would then be throttled. Not just certain services. Using a VPN essentially takes away everything from them and reduces their only tool to a hammer and forcing everything to look like a nail. There is no granularity. All your traffic goes to one location. They can't see what it is or what the final endpoint is because of encryption. So they can't use it to build a profile/data on you to sell. They can't inject ads into HTML or block services that compete with their own, or even grant privileged speeds to approved or preferred services. They basically are forced into a Shakespearean "to throttle or not to throttle" binary choice.
        runako 9y ago
        That's true, but in practice most consumers wouldn't notice. That's because the whitelisted services would most likely include those data-hungry services used most frequently by consumers: Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Facebook, etc. which are operated by big providers. This was how Comcast operated in ca. 2013. The bet is ISPs would be very comfortable throttling traffic, as long as whitelisted services were not affected. (They see this as a revenue generator, because they can sell fast-lane access to companies who don't want their customers' bandwidth throttled.) ISPs that go this route will likely offer a (consumer-paid) option to allow VPN traffic to use the fast lane.
polskibus 9y ago
Why are startups afraid? Shouldn't the biggest internet/cloud companies be worried first? They are going to be taxed most (esp. Netflix). Or maybe I'm missing something in the big picture?
- raverbashing 9y ago
  I agree, expect a shakedown of the biggest players In fact, I would be very happy if they were overcharged for it (especially Facebook) it would push them for NN
  - philipov 9y ago
    Which means you can predict that they will only be pushed far enough that it's cheaper to pay than to lobby for net neutrality.
    - raverbashing 9y ago
      If the telco companies had slightly longer-term vision I agree, but I'm skeptical of them not shooting themselves in the foot
- notfromhere 9y ago
  startups are going to get strangled in the crib by the biggest companies because they won't be able to afford paying for prioritization
- paxy 9y ago
  Big companies will be quick to cut deals with ISPs to prioritize their traffic. It's the startups and new products which can't afford to pay that will suffer.
- mtgx 9y ago
  They will be taxed first, but presumably the tax will be low enough that they can comfortably afford it, while also being large enough that startups will have little chance to make the same kind of deal.
illumin8 9y ago
Anyone know how to read the article behind the paywall?
- glaberficken 9y ago
  click "web" under the title here on HN that will take you to a google search click trough there and you wont be "paywalled"
  - KajMagnus 9y ago
    Doesn't work for me :-/ it's still paywalled although I access it via the 'web' link and search results page. I tested disabling Javascript too, didn't help.
- legionof7 9y ago
  Tweet it or find a tweet of the article and click that link.
- irishcoffee 9y ago
  Chrome incognito mode worked for me.
pjdemers 9y ago
The ISPs will offer full NN access for $100 a month extra. If some startup comes along with similar service, the ISPs will cut the NN price to $50 per month extra until the startup is gone. That is the whole point of repealing NN: ISPs want to be able to offer premium services at premium prices.
g09980 9y ago
Startups existed just fine before 2015 (when the repealed regulation was passed.) So why this now? I loathe Comcast & AT&T as much as any other person, but it seems like this issue has been sensationalized/editorialized so that any sensible commentary is drowned out. Edit: Well, this is an unpopular opinion (-2 points currently).
- auspex 9y ago
  This is a common argument with a major flaw. The reason NN was put in place is because Verizon tried to do what the companies want to do today. It's like saying the stock market was fine before the SEC banned insider trading. Yes, it was fine until some people started doing things that affect a large number of people in a negative or un fair way.
- decebalus1 9y ago
  Stop spreading disinformation, the regulations from 2015 and reclassification is just legislative juggling. Net neutrality was an issue from way before that (1). See numerous violations (2) and try to assert what changes does a startup have if they are in direct competition with a service which the ISP offers along with internet. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S... (2) https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... People don't downvote you because they don't agree with your 'opinion', it's just that you're wrong. What you wrote is not an opinion, it's just disinformation.
  - g09980 9y ago
    That source (Free Press) is an advocacy organization, so it by definition presents one side of a story. The pros without the cons, or something. I'm in the boat where I trust companies more than I trust the government, and believe that the original NN regulation was a path for the government to start actively censoring the internet, China-style. Want to see more debate (even if devil's advocate) along these lines instead of "they are killing startups" and "they are taking away our free YouTube."
bigtex 9y ago
How did Netflix survive pre 2015? What about Spotify?
- SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
  They survived because the ISPs faced strong regulatory backlash if they made too many anti competitive moves. Trump and Pat have removed those threats.

18 points by Vannatter 9y ago

Danihan 9y ago

Isn't the solution just more ISP competition?

Jonnax 9y ago
Lawmakers don't want that because they get paid lobby money from ISPs
SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
New tech that removes or bypasses existing barriers to entry (like the need to physically lay cable from house to house) is one possible way to create competition.
Chaebixi 9y ago
That's easy to say, but there's the well-known last mine problem. How many separate companies will be willing to run cabling to your home just to compete bitterly with an incumbent? And even if that may happen in your neighborhood, will it happen nationwide? What about rural areas where you're lucky to have one fast ISP?
- nawitus 9y ago
  In other countries there are laws which force the cable owner to rent the last mile to any ISP.
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    I'd guess countries with that kind of sensible regulation also can manage net neutrality regulations...
- briandear 9y ago
  Perhaps we should be innovating in that last mile problem.. Surely there are smart people working to engineer tech to avoid running cable.
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    The problem with wireless is that it's like sharing a single cable with everyone else. Yes, there are a lot of innovations to make that workable, but you're never going to get the same bandwidth and reliability as a cabled system.
KajMagnus 9y ago
But that's not going to happen any time soon? (in the US.) They try to unfairly kill off any competition, as far as I've read. Instead, what if a decentralized web is a safer solution. Recently here at HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16005961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16005961 "Decentralization Roundup for 2017"
thaumaturgy 9y ago
A local ISP in a semi-rural area has been putting their business on the line for over a decade now to build out broadband in the area. They're targeting under-served, denser housing swaths of the region where there is little to no broadband competition. The price tag for the initial stage of the build out is in the several millions of dollars. The first-stage service area would be under 1,000 homes. They hope to charge around $100/mo for the service. So, you do the math. Is that a business model you'd want to try to live off of?
- briandear 9y ago
  A startup like Mattermark raised 17 million simply to aggregate data about startups. Surely investors would be interested in an actual business with a clearly defined business model — or any business model for that matter. There’s a graveyard of startups that were able to raise a lot of money and not do basically anything other than raise more money. Didn’t Leap raise a billion dollars for a VR headset thingy that hasn’t even shipped? Surely there’s 50 million for an ISP startup. With the ability to be something beyond a common utility, there is going to be interest in investing in ISP innovation — especially tech that provides fiber speed without ripping up the landscape.
cmsonger 9y ago
The problem is that the ISP business meets the textbook definition of a natural monopoly, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
brndnmtthws 9y ago
In a non-corrupt market, yes.
msla 9y ago
That is, to be very generous, a long time horizon solution to a near-term problem. ISP competition, assuming it's going to happen at all, will not happen quickly, and will be challenged by existing ISPs using a mix of legal and competitive methods.

brndnmtthws 9y ago

VPNs for everyone?

turc1656 9y ago
Yep. Beat me to making the comment. This is already a solved problem. A VPN solves this problem quite well. Only exception I see is overall bandwidth usage. They'll obviously still see the total amount of traffic going across their lines and may throttle that, but that would apply to everyone equally, which I don't have an issue with. Since they won't be able to see the traffic due to encryption, they can't inhibit/block certain sites or services. Nor can they inject ads or anything else into the HTML responses. They would also be essentially blind and unable to build a profile about you to sell.
- thefreeman 9y ago
  That doesn't work if they decide to throttle anything not on the "whitelist" of high priority sites based on your plan.
  - turc1656 9y ago
    i don't believe that's true. they won't be able to see what you are accessing other than the VPN as long as you are routing all traffic through it (which you should be). so it's all or nothing for them. They can't really pick and choose what to prioritize because they can't see what it is due to the encryption.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
      They can easily choose what to prioritize. VPNs won't be prioritized, so any traffic over them will get slowed down.
      - turc1656 9y ago
        Right, I think we're talking about two different things. Yes, they can choose to not prioritize the VPN traffic. But they won't be able to, for example, slow down Netflix because they have a competing on-demand service because they won't be able to see the traffic. So it's all or nothing when on the VPN. All of your traffic is throttled or none of it will be.

isaac_is_goat 9y ago

So looks like they were right when they said it would encourage innovation. Go figure.

Chaebixi 9y ago
Some "innovation" is a waste of resources. Specifically, the innovation required to work around broken policy.
- turc1656 9y ago
  Or fixing an already solved problem. Using a VPN addresses basically everything they are trying to fix.
  - runako 9y ago
    ISPs can trivially prioritize content from preferred providers while throttling all other traffic, including VPN traffic. VPNs do not solve this problem.
    - turc1656 9y ago
      yeah but all your internet traffic would then be throttled. Not just certain services. Using a VPN essentially takes away everything from them and reduces their only tool to a hammer and forcing everything to look like a nail. There is no granularity. All your traffic goes to one location. They can't see what it is or what the final endpoint is because of encryption. So they can't use it to build a profile/data on you to sell. They can't inject ads into HTML or block services that compete with their own, or even grant privileged speeds to approved or preferred services. They basically are forced into a Shakespearean "to throttle or not to throttle" binary choice.
      - runako 9y ago
        That's true, but in practice most consumers wouldn't notice. That's because the whitelisted services would most likely include those data-hungry services used most frequently by consumers: Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Facebook, etc. which are operated by big providers. This was how Comcast operated in ca. 2013. The bet is ISPs would be very comfortable throttling traffic, as long as whitelisted services were not affected. (They see this as a revenue generator, because they can sell fast-lane access to companies who don't want their customers' bandwidth throttled.) ISPs that go this route will likely offer a (consumer-paid) option to allow VPN traffic to use the fast lane.

polskibus 9y ago

Why are startups afraid? Shouldn't the biggest internet/cloud companies be worried first? They are going to be taxed most (esp. Netflix). Or maybe I'm missing something in the big picture?

raverbashing 9y ago
I agree, expect a shakedown of the biggest players In fact, I would be very happy if they were overcharged for it (especially Facebook) it would push them for NN
- philipov 9y ago
  Which means you can predict that they will only be pushed far enough that it's cheaper to pay than to lobby for net neutrality.
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    If the telco companies had slightly longer-term vision I agree, but I'm skeptical of them not shooting themselves in the foot
notfromhere 9y ago
startups are going to get strangled in the crib by the biggest companies because they won't be able to afford paying for prioritization
paxy 9y ago
Big companies will be quick to cut deals with ISPs to prioritize their traffic. It's the startups and new products which can't afford to pay that will suffer.
mtgx 9y ago
They will be taxed first, but presumably the tax will be low enough that they can comfortably afford it, while also being large enough that startups will have little chance to make the same kind of deal.

illumin8 9y ago

Anyone know how to read the article behind the paywall?

glaberficken 9y ago
click "web" under the title here on HN that will take you to a google search click trough there and you wont be "paywalled"
- KajMagnus 9y ago
  Doesn't work for me :-/ it's still paywalled although I access it via the 'web' link and search results page. I tested disabling Javascript too, didn't help.
legionof7 9y ago
Tweet it or find a tweet of the article and click that link.
irishcoffee 9y ago
Chrome incognito mode worked for me.

pjdemers 9y ago

The ISPs will offer full NN access for $100 a month extra. If some startup comes along with similar service, the ISPs will cut the NN price to $50 per month extra until the startup is gone. That is the whole point of repealing NN: ISPs want to be able to offer premium services at premium prices.

g09980 9y ago

Startups existed just fine before 2015 (when the repealed regulation was passed.) So why this now? I loathe Comcast & AT&T as much as any other person, but it seems like this issue has been sensationalized/editorialized so that any sensible commentary is drowned out. Edit: Well, this is an unpopular opinion (-2 points currently).

auspex 9y ago
This is a common argument with a major flaw. The reason NN was put in place is because Verizon tried to do what the companies want to do today. It's like saying the stock market was fine before the SEC banned insider trading. Yes, it was fine until some people started doing things that affect a large number of people in a negative or un fair way.
decebalus1 9y ago
Stop spreading disinformation, the regulations from 2015 and reclassification is just legislative juggling. Net neutrality was an issue from way before that (1). See numerous violations (2) and try to assert what changes does a startup have if they are in direct competition with a service which the ISP offers along with internet. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S... (2) https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... People don't downvote you because they don't agree with your 'opinion', it's just that you're wrong. What you wrote is not an opinion, it's just disinformation.
- g09980 9y ago
  That source (Free Press) is an advocacy organization, so it by definition presents one side of a story. The pros without the cons, or something. I'm in the boat where I trust companies more than I trust the government, and believe that the original NN regulation was a path for the government to start actively censoring the internet, China-style. Want to see more debate (even if devil's advocate) along these lines instead of "they are killing startups" and "they are taking away our free YouTube."

bigtex 9y ago

How did Netflix survive pre 2015? What about Spotify?

SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
They survived because the ISPs faced strong regulatory backlash if they made too many anti competitive moves. Trump and Pat have removed those threats.