5 ms·

Nobody is against NN. Nobody wants the internet to be less free. The problem here is that the FCC is detonating a nuclear bomb to try to put out a house fire.

Nobody is against NN. Nobody wants the internet to be less free. The problem here is that the FCC is detonating a nuclear bomb to try to put out a house fire. It's completely unnecessary and will do more harm than good.

ForHackernews 12y ago
> Nobody is against NN. Nobody wants the internet to be less free. Yes, absolutely the telecom companies are against net neutrality, because they want to be able to charge a premium for some sites, and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic. Also, I just want to highlight that there are lot of brand-new accounts on this thread posting cable-company talking points.
- tertius 12y ago
  > because they want to be able to charge a premium for some sites Elaborate on this plan. > and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic. This is generally how the internet works. When you say "kinds" you mean surgery in action data vs. netflix data. Or when you say "kinds" do you mean netflix data vs. ISP movie provider data. That is the same kind of data. You need to be a little more clear. The internet gives preferential routing to certain kinds of data by design. * A bunch of new accounts arguing the opposite as well.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    The major consumer isps have been crystal clear (unless you don't wish to understand): they look at large consumer-facing internet companies and want a piece of the action. eg the recent action by Verizon to charge Netflix money to deliver Netflix to Verizon's paying customers. So if we don't want pay-to-play internet companies, we need net neutrality. Particularly given the widespread monopoly structure of home internet access.
    - tertius 12y ago
      TitleII is not the solution for this problem.
      - URSpider94 12y ago
        Can you explain why not?
        tertius 12y ago
        The FTC exists to police competition and consumer protection. TitleII is doomed to fail in court > http://techfreedom.org/post/110086459629/wheeler-ensures-fcc-will-lose-in-court-again-on http://techfreedom.org/post/110086459629/wheeler-ensures-fcc...
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        Simply stating a conclusion is not an argument.
  - URSpider94 12y ago
    >> because they want to be able to charge a premium for some sites >Elaborate on this plan. OK. Comcast offers their "On Demand" service over their IP network. I can consume it with their set-top box, or with an XFinity app on my XBox. The bandwidth that I use for this app does not count against any data cap that Comcast may impose, and they're also doing traffic shaping to give this on-demand content preference over what I would get with Amazon or Netflix apps sitting next to the Comcast app in my home menu. That is using their position as the last-mile provider to give their content preferential treatment. >> and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic. >This is generally how the internet works. When you say "kinds" you mean surgery in action data vs. netflix data. Or when you say "kinds" do you mean netflix data vs. ISP movie provider data. That is the same kind of data. You need to be a little more clear. The internet gives preferential routing to certain kinds of data by design. See above. Comcast and others are already giving preferential treatment to their own video streaming services vs. other services that are streaming the same kind of content.
copsarebastards 12y ago
user: covzzire created: 19 minutes ago
- covzzire 12y ago
  I like how you refuted my points with logic and reason and didn't try to cop out via some lame method like clicking a green link.
  - copsarebastards 12y ago
    Stick around and be a productive member of the community and I'll happily engage you in debate. But I don't see much point debating with < 1 hour old accounts spitting ISP talking points -- so far it's most likely you're just an astroturfing corporate shill. I can't prove it of course, I'm just playing the odds.
    - meragrin 12y ago
      Why would people want to stick around and be a productive member if they are immediately branded as a shill? This topic has certainly brought out the worst. It seems like everyone is accusing everyone of being an astroturfing shill.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        Perhaps if a significant amount of the new accounts were not parroting discredited anti-neutrality talking points.. It's a pretty simple calculus. Some fairly influential people hang out here, and monied interests have been screaming their heads off that they don't want this. With that in mind, it's a lot more likely that shilling and astroturfing is going on than it is not. Whether that applies to you or not cannot be said (it's unfalsifiable anyways), but the facts stand.
        meragrin 12y ago
        Here's the breakdown of new accounts I noticed: 4 for NN (not necessarily for the FCC action) 1 against 1 unknown 1 ambiguous Unless you have a different definition of new account, it is not even close to 'all but universally'. Edit: I'm still not seeing how your edit applies. There was only one new person I saw that would even come close to 'parroting discredited anti-neutrality talking points'.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Nobody is against NN. Lots of people in this debate have come out specifically against net neutrality. > The problem here is that the FCC is detonating a nuclear bomb to try to put out a house fire. That's the argument that a lot of people who were publicly anti-neutrality until the last few months have suddenly swung around to, sure.

ForHackernews 12y ago

> Nobody is against NN. Nobody wants the internet to be less free. Yes, absolutely the telecom companies are against net neutrality, because they want to be able to charge a premium for some sites, and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic. Also, I just want to highlight that there are lot of brand-new accounts on this thread posting cable-company talking points.

tertius 12y ago
> because they want to be able to charge a premium for some sites Elaborate on this plan. > and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic. This is generally how the internet works. When you say "kinds" you mean surgery in action data vs. netflix data. Or when you say "kinds" do you mean netflix data vs. ISP movie provider data. That is the same kind of data. You need to be a little more clear. The internet gives preferential routing to certain kinds of data by design. * A bunch of new accounts arguing the opposite as well.
- x0x0 12y ago
  The major consumer isps have been crystal clear (unless you don't wish to understand): they look at large consumer-facing internet companies and want a piece of the action. eg the recent action by Verizon to charge Netflix money to deliver Netflix to Verizon's paying customers. So if we don't want pay-to-play internet companies, we need net neutrality. Particularly given the widespread monopoly structure of home internet access.
  - tertius 12y ago
    TitleII is not the solution for this problem.
    - URSpider94 12y ago
      Can you explain why not?
      - tertius 12y ago
        The FTC exists to police competition and consumer protection. TitleII is doomed to fail in court > http://techfreedom.org/post/110086459629/wheeler-ensures-fcc-will-lose-in-court-again-on http://techfreedom.org/post/110086459629/wheeler-ensures-fcc...
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      Simply stating a conclusion is not an argument.
- URSpider94 12y ago
  >> because they want to be able to charge a premium for some sites >Elaborate on this plan. OK. Comcast offers their "On Demand" service over their IP network. I can consume it with their set-top box, or with an XFinity app on my XBox. The bandwidth that I use for this app does not count against any data cap that Comcast may impose, and they're also doing traffic shaping to give this on-demand content preference over what I would get with Amazon or Netflix apps sitting next to the Comcast app in my home menu. That is using their position as the last-mile provider to give their content preferential treatment. >> and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic. >This is generally how the internet works. When you say "kinds" you mean surgery in action data vs. netflix data. Or when you say "kinds" do you mean netflix data vs. ISP movie provider data. That is the same kind of data. You need to be a little more clear. The internet gives preferential routing to certain kinds of data by design. See above. Comcast and others are already giving preferential treatment to their own video streaming services vs. other services that are streaming the same kind of content.

copsarebastards 12y ago

user: covzzire created: 19 minutes ago

covzzire 12y ago
I like how you refuted my points with logic and reason and didn't try to cop out via some lame method like clicking a green link.
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  Stick around and be a productive member of the community and I'll happily engage you in debate. But I don't see much point debating with < 1 hour old accounts spitting ISP talking points -- so far it's most likely you're just an astroturfing corporate shill. I can't prove it of course, I'm just playing the odds.
  - meragrin 12y ago
    Why would people want to stick around and be a productive member if they are immediately branded as a shill? This topic has certainly brought out the worst. It seems like everyone is accusing everyone of being an astroturfing shill.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      Perhaps if a significant amount of the new accounts were not parroting discredited anti-neutrality talking points.. It's a pretty simple calculus. Some fairly influential people hang out here, and monied interests have been screaming their heads off that they don't want this. With that in mind, it's a lot more likely that shilling and astroturfing is going on than it is not. Whether that applies to you or not cannot be said (it's unfalsifiable anyways), but the facts stand.
      - meragrin 12y ago
        Here's the breakdown of new accounts I noticed: 4 for NN (not necessarily for the FCC action) 1 against 1 unknown 1 ambiguous Unless you have a different definition of new account, it is not even close to 'all but universally'. Edit: I'm still not seeing how your edit applies. There was only one new person I saw that would even come close to 'parroting discredited anti-neutrality talking points'.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Nobody is against NN. Lots of people in this debate have come out specifically against net neutrality. > The problem here is that the FCC is detonating a nuclear bomb to try to put out a house fire. That's the argument that a lot of people who were publicly anti-neutrality until the last few months have suddenly swung around to, sure.