6 ms·

Reed Hastings: Comcast no longer following net neutrality principles

160 points by dwynings 15y ago

lawnchair_larry 15y ago
Comcast is currently filtering www.slutload.com [NSFW obviously] as well. I really hate their monopoly.
- wmf 15y ago
  "It has absolutely nothing to do with content; ... it is part of a (large) IP range temporarily blocked to curb a DoS attack." http://vi.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/sackm/til_comcast_is_actively_censoring_the_internet/ http://vi.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/sackm/til_comcast_is_act...
wmf 15y ago
There is some ambiguity about where bandwidth accounting should take place: on the last mile link between the customer and Comcast or the transit link(s) between Comcast and the Internet. Comcast claims that anything coming from a server inside Comcast itself (e.g. Xfinity) should not count against the cap because it causes no congestion; this assumes that the cap exists only to prevent congestion on the transit side. I suspect that this is all just post facto justification, though.
- simonster 15y ago
  The obvious next step is for Comcast to start a CDN inside their network and start selling CDN services to other companies, so that material served from the CDN doesn't count against customers' caps. They can claim that this doesn't violate net neutrality principles, but the consequences would be the same: Comcast can use their ISP monopoly to keep their foothold in the content delivery business. The real danger to the open internet will come when wireless carriers get in on this action. Since nearly all wireless data plans offer tiny amounts of bandwidth as compared to wired broadband, there's a much greater incentive for users to use services that won't count against their caps...
  - justinsb 15y ago
    On the wireless point, I believe that the expensive bit of wireless networks is definitely the spectrum from the tower to the device. So I don't think the analogy holds. (?)
- dsr_ 15y ago
  From a customer's viewpoint, it makes no difference where the bits are coming from, until Comcast charges differently. And that's what's going on here: the bits are cheaper when they don't count against a quota, so Comcast's service is inherently discriminatory.
  - jerf 15y ago
    Digital television is just bits, too. If this charging of bits is so offensive, then where was everybody when digital TV, including On Demand, wasn't getting charged against your internet bandwidth? The Internet still is, ultimately, a collection of networks, not a monolithic thing. There's no Comcast "in" the Internet and another Comcast "out" of the Internet. It really is cheaper for Comcast to move bits in their own network, and this really unpacks to a demand for Comcast to extra specially mark up their own bits for customers, charge far more than they really have to, not a deal for the customers. Given that, I wouldn't be surprised Comcast ends up rolling right over on this if the fuss gets loud enough. "You really think everyone should pay more for those bits? Well... if you insist...." I think there are viable counterarguments (simonster's is probably the best), but let's be clear on exactly what those counterarguments are counterarguing and ground them in reality, not on a mythical view of the Internet.
    - wmf 15y ago
      Some people have been beating that drum: https://plus.google.com/u/0/114753028665775786510/posts/Z2fE5sosDu4 https://plus.google.com/u/0/114753028665775786510/posts/Z2fE... One could point out that a CMTS probably costs more than an edge QAM, but nobody wants to understand that.
    - Klinky 15y ago
      On Demand & CATV set-top boxes never transmitted data over your HSI connection. Streampix does. Comcast has CDNs on their networks & their own customers can connect with each other, yet those activities will still count against a customer's cap. What makes Streampix different? Maybe there is a good reason, but I don't think Comcast wants to answer or divulge the true costs of bits flowing over it's network. Comcast playing fair & people getting a better idea on how the caps affect their usage I think are good things. Comcast basically wants people to live in fear of hitting their cap if they use a competitor but don't want to stress it's own customer's over a problem they created.
- gst 15y ago
  Does this mean that I can just limit my Bittorrent client to only connect to peers in Comcast's network, if I don't want Bittorrent traffic to count against my quota?
  - aptwebapps 15y ago
    Please try it and report back.
  - zarify 15y ago
    This sort of thing has certainly been the case with the quota-free peering agreements here in Australia in the past. Do Comcast provide for unmetered traffic in their accounting tools? If so it should be relatively easy to test. The OP really doesn't sound that suspicious really, not really worth the title. If a service provider serves popular content locally via their own client to reduce the hit on their external links what's the problem? Is there some commercial advantage they're gaining from it other than not having that bandwidth eaten up?
    - wmf 15y ago
      A service that doesn't count towards the cap is perceived as "cheaper" and thus more desirable.
      - zarify 15y ago
        If a latency-sensitive service decides to host closer to part of its customer base, does that mean they're not respecting net neutrality too? At what point does something stop becoming more convenient for customers and the company (like locally hosted unmetered traffic) and start becoming a neutrality issue? Maybe I look at it differently being from a country that has always had caps, where the introduction of peering agreements and ISP hosted content meant you got more value (all downloads being 'paid for' to some of that now being 'free'). I suppose if you look at it from the perspective of going from a culture of unlimited data to capped downloads (all downloads being 'free' to most being 'paid for' and some free as it was before). It's not like they are artificially prioritizing their own content. Edit: On reading some of the other comments it sounds like it isn't just the same content via different clients, it's actually buying the same content off Comcast? Is this the case? The OP wasn't exactly a wealth of detail.
- justinsb 15y ago
  Doesn't Netflix use Akamai? If so, there's almost no traffic (when measured on Comcast's scale) from Comcast <-> Netflix, as each movie just needs to be downloaded once, and is then cached on a server living inside Comcast's network.
  - wmf 15y ago
    Netflix now uses Level 3, who has paid peering links to Comcast. http://www.voxel.net/blog/2010/12/peering-disputes-comcast-level-3-and-you http://www.voxel.net/blog/2010/12/peering-disputes-comcast-l... Also, I'm not sure that Akamai is serving everything from inside other ISPs; I know that was their original model, but things may have changed in 15 years.
    - trotsky 15y ago
      I thought comcast/level3 was settlement free?
      - wmf 15y ago
        Maybe it was free until Level 3 said "hey Comcast, why don't we expand our peering by 500 Gbps so that it can handle Netflix" and Comcast replied "that's gonna cost you".
        luser001 15y ago
        Hmm, while what you say may be technically true, it makes it appear as if Comcast would have incurred an expense which they wanted to recoup. IIRC, Level 3 wanted to simply push more traffic through their existing peering ports. Would that have Comcast more? No, it wouldn't have, AFAIK.
    - justinsb 15y ago
      That's a great link, though a little confusing to me. Here's what I understand, with fake dollar amounts: CDN services need to be priced at $2. Netflix used to use Akamai; Netflix paid Akamai $3, Akamai paid Comcast $1, and everyone was happy. Netflix now moved to Level 3, who they pay $1, and Level 3 demand $1 from Comcast (because L3 makes a loss if they don't charge $2). Netflix saved $2, so is happy. Comcast is unhappy, because they're out that same $2. So now Comcast is crying foul and looking at ways to recoup that $2. Netflix is engaging in a PR battle, but really caused all this by switching from Akamai to Level 3. Is that accurate?
- mikeryan 15y ago
  on the last mile link between the customer and Comcast or the transit link(s) between Comcast and the Internet. Comcast claims that anything coming from a server inside Comcast itself (e.g. Xfinity) should not count against the cap because it causes no congestion; Can you support Comcast making these claims? The last mile has always been the primary point of congestion on their internet pipes its been this way since @home started doing cable based internet. This justification would be a really tough sell. I'd have to think that they'd be much more likely to claim its the same TV content and it shouldn't matter if its coming over the IP vs Broadcast network its all pretty much the same infrastructure.
  - wmf 15y ago
    http://stopthecap.com/2012/04/02/comcast-changes-language-over-xbox-usage-cap-spat-same-story-different-words/ http://stopthecap.com/2012/04/02/comcast-changes-language-ov... I don't necessarily endorse Stop the Cap's analysis, but they have links to the relevant primary sources.
    - mikeryan 15y ago
      I'm sorry I must be missing something, that link seems to reinforce Xfinity's position on Xbox streamed content,but I can't find a link where Comcast claims that content originating inside their network shouldn't count because it doesn't cause congestion.
      - Retric 15y ago
        It has noting to do with congestion. Cap's are Comcat's attempt to keep people on cable. They could charge for bandwidth and bundle 250GB with the subscription and then charge 10 cents per GB after that. However, if they did that then watching 2 hours of Hulu a day would be significantly cheaper than basic cable which scares them. So, instead they cancel peoples internet service when they go over the cap.
alecperkins 15y ago
From what I understand, Xfinity is delivered from Comcast's own network, so it's not exactly equal to the other sources he describes. Still, this highlights how mixing network providers and content providers gets messy. It opens up the door for ISPs to use their position in an effective monopoly to favor their own content sources over others.
loverobots 15y ago
I understand that there's more to the Comcast /Netflix dispute, but soon or later the "dumb pipes" are going to want a cut, especially for heavy usage. Until that's solved (lobbyists are rubbing their hands!) speed etc are irrelevant. Who cares that you can download at 50mb/s when the limit is reached after a few minutes /hours of full usage?
- philwelch 15y ago
  It occurs to me that as we move towards "dumb pipes", they should be treated more or less as a public utility--if even a metered one--just like actual water and sewer pipes.
  - twoodfin 15y ago
    But you don't need or want a water pipe that delivers 10x as much water every two or three years. Assuming you want bandwidth to follow that curve, someone needs the incentive to pay for it.
    - bbrtyth 15y ago
      Those companies are already paid tons by the government to improve their pipes and we are still lagging behind Europe, Japan, and Korea in terms of bandwidth.
  - pbreit 15y ago
    Isn't this a sign of moving _away_ from dumb pipes?
  - loverobots 15y ago
    Metered it is right now (see caps) but if you want 24/7 ESPN and HBO and I just want to email and access CNN.com a few times a day why should I pay for you? The "internet" has changed, it was pages and images, now it's videos and with Xbox, Hulu and Netflix it's also cable. The net providers have a point, it costs a fortune to lay, expand and maintain the pipes as demand increases. Not sure how it's solved, but Netflix and others have to shell a few bucks, the money they are saving by not mailing DVDs might come in handy
courtneypowell 15y ago
We started a petition for Comcast to comply with net neutrality and apply caps equally, or not at all. Please sign if you agree and share: http://pblk.dm/IVLlza http://pblk.dm/IVLlza
- chollida1 15y ago
  The actual link the above obfuscated link points to: http://publikdemand.com/d/comcast/stop-violating-net-neutrality/6dd7e574-8755-11e1-9622-123139080280 http://publikdemand.com/d/comcast/stop-violating-net-neutral...
  - lawnchair_larry 15y ago
    It wasn't really obfuscated. pblk.dm is obviously publikdemand.com's own url shorter.
    - chollida1 15y ago
      Would you be happy with the term minified, rather than obfuscated? I agree there isn't one accepted definition for what obfuscated means wrt urls. I use the term to mean any link that is changed to be less readable. There wasn't any harm or judgement intended:)
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
zyce 15y ago
Akamai installs their blades directly inside ISPs. This covers Netflix and Hulu. What's up now, Comcast?
- justinsb 15y ago
  It seems that Netflix stopped using Akamai. The other discussion thread here has some great links: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3845098 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3845098
  - jedberg 15y ago
    That's not true. Netflix uses all three major CDNs and the client picks the best one.
robwgibbons 15y ago
Comcast never followed net neutrality principles.
victorbstan 15y ago
It seems the entire world is facing erosion of freedom and equality when it comes to accessing the net in an unobstructed and private manner. Great forces are at play, from politicians to capitalists, who own the wires and the antennae. The facts are clear: the internet is going to be controlled and manipulated for power and profit. What do we do about it? What can we do about it? Can we build an information network that is unbiased, universal and fair? A network of information trasmission that can be resilient in the face of such attacks?
- SkyMarshal 15y ago
  http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan/ http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan/ http://www.reddit.com/r/darknet http://www.reddit.com/r/darknet http://www.reddit.com/r/i2p http://www.reddit.com/r/i2p
mwsherman 15y ago
“Principles”. Part of the problem is that the definition of neutrality is very ad hoc and untestable. Like pornography, we know it when we see it. (Side note, obviously Reed is not unbiased from a financial perspective.) I understand the instinct. But the fact that it took weeks for anyone to call this non-neutral is evidence that after arguing this for x years, we still don’t have a testable definition. Yes, this move by Comcast is non-neutral. It was non-neutral when Facebook offered something similar over mobile: http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/18/facebook-launches-0-facebook-com-a-mobile-site-that-incurs-zero-data-fees/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/18/facebook-launches-0-faceboo... CDNs? Not neutral. The problem is that caps are reasonable (even if we prefer otherwise). And offering bits for free is hard to argue against, for the consumer. So if two reasonable acts constitute a violation of net neutrality, what does that say about our definition?
- bo1024 15y ago
  > “Principles”. Part of the problem is that the definition of neutrality is very ad hoc and untestable. Really? I may be naive here, but I thought it was very clear and straightforward: 1) Packets are not routed differently based on content or source. 2) Packets (or bits) cost the same amount regardless of content or source.
gioele 15y ago
Past HN discussions: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3766284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3766284 (The new Comcast Xbox Xfinity app is the first nail in net neutrality’s coffin) * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3505922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3505922 (Free Wikipedia in Africa and Middle East (first step against net neutrality?))

160 points by dwynings 15y ago

lawnchair_larry 15y ago

Comcast is currently filtering www.slutload.com [NSFW obviously] as well. I really hate their monopoly.

wmf 15y ago
"It has absolutely nothing to do with content; ... it is part of a (large) IP range temporarily blocked to curb a DoS attack." http://vi.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/sackm/til_comcast_is_actively_censoring_the_internet/ http://vi.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/sackm/til_comcast_is_act...

wmf 15y ago

There is some ambiguity about where bandwidth accounting should take place: on the last mile link between the customer and Comcast or the transit link(s) between Comcast and the Internet. Comcast claims that anything coming from a server inside Comcast itself (e.g. Xfinity) should not count against the cap because it causes no congestion; this assumes that the cap exists only to prevent congestion on the transit side. I suspect that this is all just post facto justification, though.

simonster 15y ago
The obvious next step is for Comcast to start a CDN inside their network and start selling CDN services to other companies, so that material served from the CDN doesn't count against customers' caps. They can claim that this doesn't violate net neutrality principles, but the consequences would be the same: Comcast can use their ISP monopoly to keep their foothold in the content delivery business. The real danger to the open internet will come when wireless carriers get in on this action. Since nearly all wireless data plans offer tiny amounts of bandwidth as compared to wired broadband, there's a much greater incentive for users to use services that won't count against their caps...
- justinsb 15y ago
  On the wireless point, I believe that the expensive bit of wireless networks is definitely the spectrum from the tower to the device. So I don't think the analogy holds. (?)
dsr_ 15y ago
From a customer's viewpoint, it makes no difference where the bits are coming from, until Comcast charges differently. And that's what's going on here: the bits are cheaper when they don't count against a quota, so Comcast's service is inherently discriminatory.
- jerf 15y ago
  Digital television is just bits, too. If this charging of bits is so offensive, then where was everybody when digital TV, including On Demand, wasn't getting charged against your internet bandwidth? The Internet still is, ultimately, a collection of networks, not a monolithic thing. There's no Comcast "in" the Internet and another Comcast "out" of the Internet. It really is cheaper for Comcast to move bits in their own network, and this really unpacks to a demand for Comcast to extra specially mark up their own bits for customers, charge far more than they really have to, not a deal for the customers. Given that, I wouldn't be surprised Comcast ends up rolling right over on this if the fuss gets loud enough. "You really think everyone should pay more for those bits? Well... if you insist...." I think there are viable counterarguments (simonster's is probably the best), but let's be clear on exactly what those counterarguments are counterarguing and ground them in reality, not on a mythical view of the Internet.
  - wmf 15y ago
    Some people have been beating that drum: https://plus.google.com/u/0/114753028665775786510/posts/Z2fE5sosDu4 https://plus.google.com/u/0/114753028665775786510/posts/Z2fE... One could point out that a CMTS probably costs more than an edge QAM, but nobody wants to understand that.
  - Klinky 15y ago
    On Demand & CATV set-top boxes never transmitted data over your HSI connection. Streampix does. Comcast has CDNs on their networks & their own customers can connect with each other, yet those activities will still count against a customer's cap. What makes Streampix different? Maybe there is a good reason, but I don't think Comcast wants to answer or divulge the true costs of bits flowing over it's network. Comcast playing fair & people getting a better idea on how the caps affect their usage I think are good things. Comcast basically wants people to live in fear of hitting their cap if they use a competitor but don't want to stress it's own customer's over a problem they created.
gst 15y ago
Does this mean that I can just limit my Bittorrent client to only connect to peers in Comcast's network, if I don't want Bittorrent traffic to count against my quota?
- aptwebapps 15y ago
  Please try it and report back.
- zarify 15y ago
  This sort of thing has certainly been the case with the quota-free peering agreements here in Australia in the past. Do Comcast provide for unmetered traffic in their accounting tools? If so it should be relatively easy to test. The OP really doesn't sound that suspicious really, not really worth the title. If a service provider serves popular content locally via their own client to reduce the hit on their external links what's the problem? Is there some commercial advantage they're gaining from it other than not having that bandwidth eaten up?
  - wmf 15y ago
    A service that doesn't count towards the cap is perceived as "cheaper" and thus more desirable.
    - zarify 15y ago
      If a latency-sensitive service decides to host closer to part of its customer base, does that mean they're not respecting net neutrality too? At what point does something stop becoming more convenient for customers and the company (like locally hosted unmetered traffic) and start becoming a neutrality issue? Maybe I look at it differently being from a country that has always had caps, where the introduction of peering agreements and ISP hosted content meant you got more value (all downloads being 'paid for' to some of that now being 'free'). I suppose if you look at it from the perspective of going from a culture of unlimited data to capped downloads (all downloads being 'free' to most being 'paid for' and some free as it was before). It's not like they are artificially prioritizing their own content. Edit: On reading some of the other comments it sounds like it isn't just the same content via different clients, it's actually buying the same content off Comcast? Is this the case? The OP wasn't exactly a wealth of detail.
justinsb 15y ago
Doesn't Netflix use Akamai? If so, there's almost no traffic (when measured on Comcast's scale) from Comcast <-> Netflix, as each movie just needs to be downloaded once, and is then cached on a server living inside Comcast's network.
- wmf 15y ago
  Netflix now uses Level 3, who has paid peering links to Comcast. http://www.voxel.net/blog/2010/12/peering-disputes-comcast-level-3-and-you http://www.voxel.net/blog/2010/12/peering-disputes-comcast-l... Also, I'm not sure that Akamai is serving everything from inside other ISPs; I know that was their original model, but things may have changed in 15 years.
  - trotsky 15y ago
    I thought comcast/level3 was settlement free?
    - wmf 15y ago
      Maybe it was free until Level 3 said "hey Comcast, why don't we expand our peering by 500 Gbps so that it can handle Netflix" and Comcast replied "that's gonna cost you".
      - luser001 15y ago
        Hmm, while what you say may be technically true, it makes it appear as if Comcast would have incurred an expense which they wanted to recoup. IIRC, Level 3 wanted to simply push more traffic through their existing peering ports. Would that have Comcast more? No, it wouldn't have, AFAIK.
  - justinsb 15y ago
    That's a great link, though a little confusing to me. Here's what I understand, with fake dollar amounts: CDN services need to be priced at $2. Netflix used to use Akamai; Netflix paid Akamai $3, Akamai paid Comcast $1, and everyone was happy. Netflix now moved to Level 3, who they pay $1, and Level 3 demand $1 from Comcast (because L3 makes a loss if they don't charge $2). Netflix saved $2, so is happy. Comcast is unhappy, because they're out that same $2. So now Comcast is crying foul and looking at ways to recoup that $2. Netflix is engaging in a PR battle, but really caused all this by switching from Akamai to Level 3. Is that accurate?
mikeryan 15y ago
on the last mile link between the customer and Comcast or the transit link(s) between Comcast and the Internet. Comcast claims that anything coming from a server inside Comcast itself (e.g. Xfinity) should not count against the cap because it causes no congestion; Can you support Comcast making these claims? The last mile has always been the primary point of congestion on their internet pipes its been this way since @home started doing cable based internet. This justification would be a really tough sell. I'd have to think that they'd be much more likely to claim its the same TV content and it shouldn't matter if its coming over the IP vs Broadcast network its all pretty much the same infrastructure.
- wmf 15y ago
  http://stopthecap.com/2012/04/02/comcast-changes-language-over-xbox-usage-cap-spat-same-story-different-words/ http://stopthecap.com/2012/04/02/comcast-changes-language-ov... I don't necessarily endorse Stop the Cap's analysis, but they have links to the relevant primary sources.
  - mikeryan 15y ago
    I'm sorry I must be missing something, that link seems to reinforce Xfinity's position on Xbox streamed content,but I can't find a link where Comcast claims that content originating inside their network shouldn't count because it doesn't cause congestion.
    - Retric 15y ago
      It has noting to do with congestion. Cap's are Comcat's attempt to keep people on cable. They could charge for bandwidth and bundle 250GB with the subscription and then charge 10 cents per GB after that. However, if they did that then watching 2 hours of Hulu a day would be significantly cheaper than basic cable which scares them. So, instead they cancel peoples internet service when they go over the cap.

alecperkins 15y ago

From what I understand, Xfinity is delivered from Comcast's own network, so it's not exactly equal to the other sources he describes. Still, this highlights how mixing network providers and content providers gets messy. It opens up the door for ISPs to use their position in an effective monopoly to favor their own content sources over others.

loverobots 15y ago

I understand that there's more to the Comcast /Netflix dispute, but soon or later the "dumb pipes" are going to want a cut, especially for heavy usage. Until that's solved (lobbyists are rubbing their hands!) speed etc are irrelevant. Who cares that you can download at 50mb/s when the limit is reached after a few minutes /hours of full usage?

philwelch 15y ago
It occurs to me that as we move towards "dumb pipes", they should be treated more or less as a public utility--if even a metered one--just like actual water and sewer pipes.
- twoodfin 15y ago
  But you don't need or want a water pipe that delivers 10x as much water every two or three years. Assuming you want bandwidth to follow that curve, someone needs the incentive to pay for it.
  - bbrtyth 15y ago
    Those companies are already paid tons by the government to improve their pipes and we are still lagging behind Europe, Japan, and Korea in terms of bandwidth.
- pbreit 15y ago
  Isn't this a sign of moving _away_ from dumb pipes?
- loverobots 15y ago
  Metered it is right now (see caps) but if you want 24/7 ESPN and HBO and I just want to email and access CNN.com a few times a day why should I pay for you? The "internet" has changed, it was pages and images, now it's videos and with Xbox, Hulu and Netflix it's also cable. The net providers have a point, it costs a fortune to lay, expand and maintain the pipes as demand increases. Not sure how it's solved, but Netflix and others have to shell a few bucks, the money they are saving by not mailing DVDs might come in handy

courtneypowell 15y ago

We started a petition for Comcast to comply with net neutrality and apply caps equally, or not at all. Please sign if you agree and share: http://pblk.dm/IVLlza http://pblk.dm/IVLlza

chollida1 15y ago
The actual link the above obfuscated link points to: http://publikdemand.com/d/comcast/stop-violating-net-neutrality/6dd7e574-8755-11e1-9622-123139080280 http://publikdemand.com/d/comcast/stop-violating-net-neutral...
- lawnchair_larry 15y ago
  It wasn't really obfuscated. pblk.dm is obviously publikdemand.com's own url shorter.
  - chollida1 15y ago
    Would you be happy with the term minified, rather than obfuscated? I agree there isn't one accepted definition for what obfuscated means wrt urls. I use the term to mean any link that is changed to be less readable. There wasn't any harm or judgement intended:)

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

zyce 15y ago

Akamai installs their blades directly inside ISPs. This covers Netflix and Hulu. What's up now, Comcast?

justinsb 15y ago
It seems that Netflix stopped using Akamai. The other discussion thread here has some great links: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3845098 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3845098
- jedberg 15y ago
  That's not true. Netflix uses all three major CDNs and the client picks the best one.

robwgibbons 15y ago

Comcast never followed net neutrality principles.

victorbstan 15y ago

It seems the entire world is facing erosion of freedom and equality when it comes to accessing the net in an unobstructed and private manner. Great forces are at play, from politicians to capitalists, who own the wires and the antennae. The facts are clear: the internet is going to be controlled and manipulated for power and profit. What do we do about it? What can we do about it? Can we build an information network that is unbiased, universal and fair? A network of information trasmission that can be resilient in the face of such attacks?

SkyMarshal 15y ago
http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan/ http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan/ http://www.reddit.com/r/darknet http://www.reddit.com/r/darknet http://www.reddit.com/r/i2p http://www.reddit.com/r/i2p

mwsherman 15y ago

“Principles”. Part of the problem is that the definition of neutrality is very ad hoc and untestable. Like pornography, we know it when we see it. (Side note, obviously Reed is not unbiased from a financial perspective.) I understand the instinct. But the fact that it took weeks for anyone to call this non-neutral is evidence that after arguing this for x years, we still don’t have a testable definition. Yes, this move by Comcast is non-neutral. It was non-neutral when Facebook offered something similar over mobile: http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/18/facebook-launches-0-facebook-com-a-mobile-site-that-incurs-zero-data-fees/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/18/facebook-launches-0-faceboo... CDNs? Not neutral. The problem is that caps are reasonable (even if we prefer otherwise). And offering bits for free is hard to argue against, for the consumer. So if two reasonable acts constitute a violation of net neutrality, what does that say about our definition?

bo1024 15y ago
> “Principles”. Part of the problem is that the definition of neutrality is very ad hoc and untestable. Really? I may be naive here, but I thought it was very clear and straightforward: 1) Packets are not routed differently based on content or source. 2) Packets (or bits) cost the same amount regardless of content or source.

gioele 15y ago

Past HN discussions: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3766284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3766284 (The new Comcast Xbox Xfinity app is the first nail in net neutrality’s coffin) * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3505922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3505922 (Free Wikipedia in Africa and Middle East (first step against net neutrality?))