3 ms·

It's an extremely useful FUD for large monopolies, since they can create their own infrastructure and cut ahead of smaller businesses that will be trampled by N

It's an extremely useful FUD for large monopolies, since they can create their own infrastructure and cut ahead of smaller businesses that will be trampled by NN regulations. It's an easy pitch because they make it sound 'democratic', but from an engineering perspective it's absolutely nuts.

kadoban 6y ago
Oh? What exactly are these onerous regulations that small businesses can't comply with, that are part of net neutrality? I can think of precisely none, help me out?
- Fellshard 6y ago
  Private custom infrastructure that can be specialized for purpose, while the ISPs maintain a monopoly and simply serve unspecialized, lowest common denominator traffic - no room for competitors to differentiate. That is the real issue to tackle: find better ways to make meaningful competition in a region possible, that can offer genuinely different specializations (e.g. High media upload vs. Slow but regular text browsing vs. Real-time gaming).
wtallis 6y ago
> but from an engineering perspective it's absolutely nuts. Net Neutrality regulations would seem to only prohibit unnecessarily complex network infrastructure, and require you to instead stick with the simpler, saner configurations that aren't discriminatory or punitive. So what exactly do you find to be "absolutely nuts" about Net Neutrality from an engineering perspective?
- rriepe 6y ago
  They had tried to push through the same thing a few years earlier but it earned the name "Internet kill switch." Net Neutrality is just the same thing with better PR. Government enforcement of net neutrality inherently includes an internet kill switch. So I'm not OP but that's what's nuts: You can't build a "net neutrality" enforcement mechanism without inherently giving the government a whole lot of power over the internet.
  - kergonath 6y ago
    > it earned the name "Internet kill switch." Was it in the same way as Obamacare “earned the name” “Obama’s death panels”? It says more about who gave the name than whatever they are trying to describe.
    - rriepe 6y ago
      It wasn't so partisan early on. It just devolved into that.
  - wtallis 6y ago
    > Government enforcement of net neutrality inherently includes an internet kill switch. > You can't build a "net neutrality" enforcement mechanism without inherently giving the government a whole lot of power over the internet. In other markets, it is not considered a government overreach for there to be regulations and enforcement mechanisms preventing extortion and anti-competitive practices. How do you justify characterizing the same kind of consumer protections applied to the internet as "a whole lot of power"? Do you use terms like "kill switch" to describe every situation where the government can get an injunction to stop a business from doing something bad? Or are you saying that the the internet should be a special exception to the otherwise-ordinary government powers to regulate commerce?
    - rriepe 6y ago
      Hypothetical extortion and anti-competitive practices. As plenty in this topic pointed out, it was repealed and nobody really noticed. The arguments for it basically boil down to "ISPs are bad and this will hurt them." It's a completely absurd argument. The government is taking someone to the dance. The dance is the consumer losing rights and power on the most important communication medium ever. And people on the internet are really, really passionate about how the government should take Google and not Comcast. How terrible it would be if Comcast went to the dance! I generally agree with speeders getting tickets. But a camera system that gives everyone a ticket every time they speed is a different thing. Automating government power is something you do carefully and only with very good reason. And yes, I would call something like that a speeding kill switch, an over-application of ordinary powers the government already has through automation.

kadoban 6y ago

Oh? What exactly are these onerous regulations that small businesses can't comply with, that are part of net neutrality? I can think of precisely none, help me out?

Fellshard 6y ago
Private custom infrastructure that can be specialized for purpose, while the ISPs maintain a monopoly and simply serve unspecialized, lowest common denominator traffic - no room for competitors to differentiate. That is the real issue to tackle: find better ways to make meaningful competition in a region possible, that can offer genuinely different specializations (e.g. High media upload vs. Slow but regular text browsing vs. Real-time gaming).

wtallis 6y ago

> but from an engineering perspective it's absolutely nuts. Net Neutrality regulations would seem to only prohibit unnecessarily complex network infrastructure, and require you to instead stick with the simpler, saner configurations that aren't discriminatory or punitive. So what exactly do you find to be "absolutely nuts" about Net Neutrality from an engineering perspective?

rriepe 6y ago
They had tried to push through the same thing a few years earlier but it earned the name "Internet kill switch." Net Neutrality is just the same thing with better PR. Government enforcement of net neutrality inherently includes an internet kill switch. So I'm not OP but that's what's nuts: You can't build a "net neutrality" enforcement mechanism without inherently giving the government a whole lot of power over the internet.
- kergonath 6y ago
  > it earned the name "Internet kill switch." Was it in the same way as Obamacare “earned the name” “Obama’s death panels”? It says more about who gave the name than whatever they are trying to describe.
  - rriepe 6y ago
    It wasn't so partisan early on. It just devolved into that.
- wtallis 6y ago
  > Government enforcement of net neutrality inherently includes an internet kill switch. > You can't build a "net neutrality" enforcement mechanism without inherently giving the government a whole lot of power over the internet. In other markets, it is not considered a government overreach for there to be regulations and enforcement mechanisms preventing extortion and anti-competitive practices. How do you justify characterizing the same kind of consumer protections applied to the internet as "a whole lot of power"? Do you use terms like "kill switch" to describe every situation where the government can get an injunction to stop a business from doing something bad? Or are you saying that the the internet should be a special exception to the otherwise-ordinary government powers to regulate commerce?
  - rriepe 6y ago
    Hypothetical extortion and anti-competitive practices. As plenty in this topic pointed out, it was repealed and nobody really noticed. The arguments for it basically boil down to "ISPs are bad and this will hurt them." It's a completely absurd argument. The government is taking someone to the dance. The dance is the consumer losing rights and power on the most important communication medium ever. And people on the internet are really, really passionate about how the government should take Google and not Comcast. How terrible it would be if Comcast went to the dance! I generally agree with speeders getting tickets. But a camera system that gives everyone a ticket every time they speed is a different thing. Automating government power is something you do carefully and only with very good reason. And yes, I would call something like that a speeding kill switch, an over-application of ordinary powers the government already has through automation.