7 ms·
Ajit Pai says you’re going to love the death of net neutrality
- JustSomeNobody 8y agoPart of me really hopes the internet heads into the crapper within the next couple years. It's time for a reboot anyway, to clear the cruft.
- CryoLogic 8y agoI don't know if the issue is the internet, I think it's the platforms that make up the internet. Google search has gone down the drain for me. 10 years ago I would find content from many sources, in depth blog posts and articles well written. Now every search is results from a small hand full of websites, full of top 10 lists you have to click through and one paragraph articles where I learn nothing. Don't believe me? Try to Google any medical condition.
- AceJohnny2 8y agoWhat makes you think anything better will emerge from the wreckage?
- sonar_un 8y agoWe were just talking about this same thing on /r/seo today. The search results are getting poorer and poorer and pbn’s are eating relevant search results.
- pavel_lishin 8y agoWhat is a pbn?
- twetge 8y agoprivate blog network. An seo company will buy a bunch of recently expiring domains related to a specific topic, and do it in a way that hides who the owners are. They build blogs on these sites, and fill them with the lowest grade content. I've see stuff that's "spun" (plagiarized content where a percentage of words have been replaced with synonyms, so that it appears original) and other stuff that's farmed out to writers in developing countries who work for pennies (A lot of articles with no real substance, written in poor english.) The owner then links all the blogs to each other, so they appear to have domain authority. Then they sell back links to their customers. This fools Google into thinking your website is trustworthy (because everyone is linking to it) and you get better placement in search results. In short, its a way anyone can buy popularity online.
- JustSomeNobody 8y agoI don't know. However, I doubt anyone can come along at this point and beat FB, Amazon, Google, Apple and Microsoft, etc. without a major shakeup.
- pavel_lishin 8y agoThey are not synonymous with "the internet".
- JustSomeNobody 8y agoThey kinda are... unfortunately.
- amelius 8y agoBack in the old days, the internet was run by government agencies and universities. Universities invented the protocols. Companies provided only the hardware. Nowadays, companies run the internet and own our data. Let's go back to the old model. Let universities research federated protocols/algorithms and such. Let the government own the fiber. And let companies build the hardware.
- zelon88 8y ago"Let the government own the fiber..." So instead of getting the backdoor they always wanted they literally have the entire house, foundation and all.
- barneygumble742 8y agoReboot the internet with IPv6 and now all your internal devices will be openly addressable to the internet. I see nothing good coming from that.
- phinnaeus 8y agoNAT is not a firewall. There's no reason you can't hide your LAN from a WAN connection with IPv6.
- flyinghamster 8y agoExactly right. When I enabled IPv6 on my home LAN, I made very sure that only those hosts (and ports!) I wanted open were available to the outside world. Otherwise, incoming IPv6 is DROP by default.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- voidwtf 8y agoThis is strange, oft-repeated, mostly incorrect argument. Almost every modern router, if it handles IPv6, handles IPv6 without NAT but with a firewall. Most consumer routers just have ALLOW ALL outbound, ALLOW EXISTING inbound, default firewall rules that would be just fine for IPv6.
- dingaling 8y agoFor a start your internal devices shouldn't have an Internet-routable prefix assigned. Secondly, refer to other comments re: firewalls
- dghughes 8y agoMaybe BBS 2.0 will appear everyone will go back to phone lines and modems.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- marvindanig 8y agoWhatever is happening in America these days is tipped in balance towards whoever owns the gun. If the gun owners say "no net neutrality" what the other 99% say doesn't matter. A confidence by way of vote in the next election might reverse this but it is no mystery that the weight of a bullet is still much higher than that of a vote. Basically, choosing between death vs. a shepherd. I wouldn't be surprised if a flip of tyranny has already occurred earlier this year. After all the reporter in her natural discourse did mention about the two dictators meeting in Singapore. It was an honest mistake from her, but the thought has crossed our minds. It probably happened sometime ago. [reverting] - no delete method here anymore? @dang please help remove this thread. -
- arcbyte 8y agoI'm not following your analogy about "the gun". Can you rephrase?
- maskedSlacker 8y agoHe's coming off a crack-binge. Pay no mind.
- drak0n1c 8y agoOver 42% of Americans live in a household with a gun. Unsure where you are sourcing the 99% statistic from. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-r... If you are worried about tyranny - the primary reason for the second amendment was to deter tyrannies of excessive regulation and authoritarian imposition (quartering of troops, etc).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sctb 8y ago> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Proven 8y agoIt doesn't apply to me, but I love it simply because it irritates members of the American left.
- gfosco 8y agoAnyone willing to consider that maybe he's right about this issue?
- bthrm 8y agoAs a European: he’s right. You’ll love zero-rating. I do. :-)
- seba_dos1 8y agoAs an European, I don't. How any sensible alternative to Facebook is supposed to out-compete it if Facebook is commonly zero-rated on mobile?
- Someone1234 8y agoYou love this[0]? Ick. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating#/media/File:Screenshot-2017-10-28_MEO_-_Televisão,_Internet,_Telefone_e_Telemóvel.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating#/media/File:Screen...
- bthrm 8y agoYes, paying extra to get unlimited traffic to certain services is good. It’s good there’s choice.
- Someone1234 8y agoYou, as the consumer, aren't making the choice. The ISP is picking which companies get the privileged position. It is in effect king-making certain services.
- bthrm 8y agoNo because European law does not allow them to do that. If you zero rate YouTube you have to zero rate all video streaming sites, for example.
- kevin_b_er 8y agoHe removed the consumer protection. I now know with full confidence he will lie to my face just like certain other politicians. All of his words are now and in the future are automatically hollow.
- spoiledtechie 8y agoCite your claim. He strengthened it. Obama admin didn't actually implement any consumer protection.
- kevin_b_er 8y agoTitle II was a consumer protection. It is removed. We have less. The only thing now is a lack of competition unless you count a convenient redefinition of competition to include wireless. To quote another FCC commissioner: > Internet service providers now have the power to block websites, throttle services, and censor online content. They will have the right to discriminate and favor the Internet traffic of those companies with whom they have pay-for-play arrangements and the right to consign all others to a slow and bumpy road. Plain and simple, thanks to the FCC's rollback of net neutrality, Internet providers have the legal green light, the technical ability, and business incentive to discriminate and manipulate what we see, read, and learn online. What do we have left? Well truth in advertising. But that just requires lies by omission and half truths to bypass. "Speeds up to 1 Gbit" is truthful. 0.01 mbit is within the advertised "truth", except when browisng websites that not paid Comcast's now legal extortion fee. Then they'll get less. We have a protection that was removed! Full stop. The existing protection of truth in advertising did not change. So we went down.
- mistrial9 8y agoThere is a city here with a six lane freeway running right through the middle of many previous residential areas.. It might seem obvious that a six lane freeway produces constant noise, heavy particulate matter in the air all year, and a constant blanket of heavy matter downwind on every surface, the soil, your clothes, etc.. The benefit of this heavy motorway is that areas far from the city became the new (wealthy) suburbs and shopping malls. It is a matter of record that some local politicians made speeches about how the new freeway would benefit the original city it runs through. I think they use the phrase "tortured truth" to express how these statements reflect what actually happened. I expect somewhat similar rise in fortunes, and drop in privileges, associated with the new "un-Net".
- kinsomo 8y ago> It is a matter of record that some local politicians made speeches about how the new freeway would benefit the original city it runs through. I think they use the phrase "tortured truth" to express how these statements reflect what actually happened. Does anyone have any more info on the meaning and usage of the term "tortured truth." I've been looking for new, concise ways to refer to a dishonest use of selectively chosen truth to mislead.
- moolcool 8y agoI don't like this analogy, because the residents of the original city see some tremendous benefits from the freeway as well
- pmoriarty 8y ago"I expect somewhat similar rise in fortunes, and drop in privileges, associated with the new 'un-Net'." I wonder if the rise of "un-Net" could provide an incentive for people to get involved in alternative ways of connecting with one another, such as something like mesh networking.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago> ISPs' required disclosures "will allow consumers to make an informed decision about which Internet service provider is best for them The one that's best for me is literally the only one that's available in my area, so my informed decision is whether to have the internet or not.
- fusiongyro 8y agoSame, and I'm paying $50/month for 5 Mbit.
- Someone1234 8y agoThe FCC actually changed the definition of an ISP so that cellular and satellite providers are included. Meaning according to official FCC statistics your area is swarming with competition, in spite of having just a single wired ISP. In fact according to official statistics, even rural areas with zero wired internet options have a great competitive landscape. Let that sink in...
- mrsteveman1 8y ago> The FCC actually changed the definition of an ISP so that cellular and satellite providers are included. Wireless providers are competition for home internet service the same way the gas station down the street selling water bottles for $3/each is an alternative to running water. You aren't going to get a $300 water bill just because some company in another state spent several days secretly filling your in-ground pool with the garden hose without permission, nor would anyone tolerate having that happen repeatedly while being told they can only brush their teeth but not flush the toilet for the rest of the month. A while back, the DSL here was not working for a few days, so I connected my iPhone to my Macbook. Normally that's not an issue while away from home or in a car for an hour or two, as there are limits to how much data anything could use in that amount of time. Apple's Photos app proactively downloaded something like 25GB of old stuff from iCloud Photo Library that I didn't ask to download, didn't browse through, or even remember having, simply because the local drive had free space and Apple decided that both the space and the bandwidth were freely available for it to waste. If wireless providers were forbidden from imposing ridiculous data caps I would be fine with calling them competition, because we do have multiple high speed providers here, they're just not usable because they'd rather be selling water bottles.
- madeuptempacct 8y agoSo, is there any chance net neutrality is coming back?
- jorblumesea 8y agoSure, and Mulvaney is really going to "streamline" the CFPB... Why is it always "removing regulations" == "removing things that protect the average person from predation" The small government/less regulations argument is just a dog whistle for unfettered corporatism.
- polski-g 8y agoIts important for everyone to know that the existence of non-existence of the Obama-era NN rules had no bearing on what most people think net neutrality did. (read: Those rules did nothing for consumer protection). ISPs were free to opt-out of those rules if they so chose to do so. https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/ https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fc...
- throwaway5752 8y agoIt's important for everyone to know the author of that linked article is a senior fellow at, "The Mercatus Center at @GeorgeMasonU is the world’s premier university source for market-oriented ideas." and is actively passing off FUD cover for the deregulation today: https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/10-things-you-need-know-about-net-neutrality https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/10-things-you-nee...
- Someone1234 8y agoThat's a legal theory that was never challenged (i.e. that ISPs could fall outside of Common Carrier status and bypass Title II). It was likely never challenged because not being a Common Carrier might make them liable for the content traveling over the wire. This article is ruminating on what might occur, not what actually occurred.
- polski-g 8y agoThe DC Court of appeals said just the same: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD0... an ISP making sufficiently clear to potential customers that it provides a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of “editorial intervention.” Id. ¶ 549. For instance, Alamo Broadband, the lone broadband provider that raises a First Amendment challenge to the rule, posits the example of an ISP wishing to provide access solely to “family friendly websites.” Alamo Pet. Reh’g 5. Such an ISP, as long as it represents itself as engaging in editorial interventi on of that kind, would fall outside the rule. See U.S. Telecom Ass’n , 825 F.3d at 743; FCC Opp’n Pets. Reh’g 28 -29; FCC Br. 146 n.53 . The Order thus specifies that an ISP remains “free to offer ‘edited’ services” without becoming subject to the rule ’s requirements . Order ¶ 556.
- spoiledtechie 8y agoCan I be the antagonist here? I simply want a free market for the internet. Stop with government intervention on both sides. Simply protect the consumer and let the free market take over. Who cares if companies like netflix get charged more? It will allow another competitor to bubble up since Netflix will start adjusting their prices. This works. Its called capitalism. In theory, simply look at Lasik. Lasik 5 years ago, used to be 5k an eye. Now I can get it from a Pandora commercial for just $200.00. Thats capitalism. It drove prices down. I expect the same thing to happen with this. Competition will drive prices down quickly. It also allows the providers like Cox or Verizon to invest in their infrastructure. EVERYONE knows we are way behind Japan and other countries with our infrastructure. Let people decide with their dollars, rather than the government deciding.
- naravara 8y ago>Let people decide with their dollars, rather than the government deciding. Government is people deciding with their votes, because letting people decide with their dollars means whoever has the most dollars gets to make all the decisions.
- pulisse 8y ago> In theory, simply look at Lasik. Lasik 5 years ago, used to be 5k an eye. Now I can get it from a Pandora commercial for just $200.00. Thats capitalism. It drove prices down. I expect the same thing to happen with this. Competition will drive prices down quickly. It also allows the providers like Cox or Verizon to invest in their infrastructure. EVERYONE knows we are way behind Japan and other countries with our infrastructure. Neither of your comparisons is on point. (a) A market like surgical services doesn't have significant barriers to entry. But the need to lay last-mile fiber or cable is a significant barrier to market entry. (b) Japan did not get its digital infrastructure through laissez-faire policies.
- thomastjeffery 8y agoThat would be fine if there were any competition to begin with. Allowing incumbents to abuse their customers does devalue them, making their competitors relatively more valuable. The problem is that there are no competitors! What we are left with are incumbents who can devalue themselves via customer abuse without consequence, which simply boils down to customer abuse.