4 ms·

This is why we desperately need net neutrality laws.

bellerocky 12y ago
Net neutrality is about the desire of ISPs to get paid from both ends of a connection. ISPs want to get money from consumers for getting access to content producers and service providers and from the latter in turn for their content being made available to consumers. The current system is that ISPs are just being paid by consumers for access to what's put online by content and service providers. Content and service providers get access to consumers for free right now. This plan by sprint limits access to consumers of this kind of connection to a single service that the consumer opts into. It seems relevant, but I'm not sure. Would net neutrality regulation prohibit something like this?
- Artemis2 12y ago
  Yes, because net neutrality is mainly about selling only "the Internet" and giving equal access to all websites to all customers. You are hearing more about the connection-throttling issues Netflix has with Verizon currently, but it ultimately falls under net neutrality too, as Verizon is trying to de-prioritize connections to Netflix.
- pjc50 12y ago
  If it doesn't prevent this, it's not proper net neutrality.
prostoalex 12y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8110919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8110919
fleitz 12y ago
Why? What is wrong with offering this service to people who like it? The only thing worse than comcast determining what kind of internet you have is letting the FCC determine what kind of internet you have.
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  What's wrong with selling rotten food to people that want it? What's wrong with selling unsafe cars? "The market" will offer the good stuff and people can choose, right?
  - fleitz 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure one of the hallmarks of freedom in the 20th century was the repeal of a constitutional amendment forbidding people to buy 'rotten' grain. Nothing is wrong with rotten food, it's some of my favourite, everything from alcohol, cheese, bread, etc. I bet you probably eat something that's rotten, and would oppose the government mandating that all food be 'fresh'. As for unsafe cars I don't see why auto wreckers should be prevented from selling cars, or charities should be prevented from being gifted 'clunkers'. The only thing that could be wrong with any of those things is being deceptive about the quality of the good, eg, passing off a rebuilt car as new, unpasturized milk as pasturized, etc. Plans like this would be perfect for my kids, a safe walled-garden until they are old enough to make decisions for themselves. I'm not sure why the FCC needs to prevent the market from offering services like this... I mean I could hack the phone to do the same thing but it would be nice to save on internet at the same time. So yes, I trust the competitive market far more than the government to provide me with the goods and services I need at a fair and reasonable price. (Note that the current telco situ is about as far away from a competitive market as one can be, the solution is competition, not regulation)
    - JetSpiegel 12y ago
      This is passing of "Internet access" for access to a curated* selection of different domains. That's deception in my book, because it reinforces the perception that "The Internet" is Google and Facebook. As for trusting the competitive market on this, I just have two words: natural monopolies. * This word has completely lost its original meaning.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

Net neutrality is about the desire of ISPs to get paid from both ends of a connection. ISPs want to get money from consumers for getting access to content producers and service providers and from the latter in turn for their content being made available to consumers. The current system is that ISPs are just being paid by consumers for access to what's put online by content and service providers. Content and service providers get access to consumers for free right now. This plan by sprint limits access to consumers of this kind of connection to a single service that the consumer opts into. It seems relevant, but I'm not sure. Would net neutrality regulation prohibit something like this?

Artemis2 12y ago
Yes, because net neutrality is mainly about selling only "the Internet" and giving equal access to all websites to all customers. You are hearing more about the connection-throttling issues Netflix has with Verizon currently, but it ultimately falls under net neutrality too, as Verizon is trying to de-prioritize connections to Netflix.
pjc50 12y ago
If it doesn't prevent this, it's not proper net neutrality.

prostoalex 12y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8110919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8110919

fleitz 12y ago

Why? What is wrong with offering this service to people who like it? The only thing worse than comcast determining what kind of internet you have is letting the FCC determine what kind of internet you have.

JetSpiegel 12y ago
What's wrong with selling rotten food to people that want it? What's wrong with selling unsafe cars? "The market" will offer the good stuff and people can choose, right?
- fleitz 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure one of the hallmarks of freedom in the 20th century was the repeal of a constitutional amendment forbidding people to buy 'rotten' grain. Nothing is wrong with rotten food, it's some of my favourite, everything from alcohol, cheese, bread, etc. I bet you probably eat something that's rotten, and would oppose the government mandating that all food be 'fresh'. As for unsafe cars I don't see why auto wreckers should be prevented from selling cars, or charities should be prevented from being gifted 'clunkers'. The only thing that could be wrong with any of those things is being deceptive about the quality of the good, eg, passing off a rebuilt car as new, unpasturized milk as pasturized, etc. Plans like this would be perfect for my kids, a safe walled-garden until they are old enough to make decisions for themselves. I'm not sure why the FCC needs to prevent the market from offering services like this... I mean I could hack the phone to do the same thing but it would be nice to save on internet at the same time. So yes, I trust the competitive market far more than the government to provide me with the goods and services I need at a fair and reasonable price. (Note that the current telco situ is about as far away from a competitive market as one can be, the solution is competition, not regulation)
  - JetSpiegel 12y ago
    This is passing of "Internet access" for access to a curated* selection of different domains. That's deception in my book, because it reinforces the perception that "The Internet" is Google and Facebook. As for trusting the competitive market on this, I just have two words: natural monopolies. * This word has completely lost its original meaning.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]