Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

by rayalez • 9 years ago

1269 379 9 years ago

wavesounds• 9 years ago

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." - Robert F Kennedy

kpennell• 9 years ago

Oakland reporting, Barbara Lee's box is full. Will try again soon.

RIMR• 9 years ago

I am firmly in support of net neutrality, but I am also sick and tired of all the ridiculous misinformation about what it actually is. At least on Reddit, people would have you believe that the Internet is about to become Cable TV.

Net Neutrality is very important to a free and open Internet, but the kind of scaremongering I see going on is absolutely insane.

We won't win this fight with scary lies. Do your part and make sure your peers are educated as to the real consequences of this repeal. None of this "You must pay to view additional posts on this website" or "Imagine if EA were your ISP" nonsense.

api3• 9 years ago

Look at what ISPs do in Portugal, which lacks any kind of net neutrality. They are already trying to bundle sites and protocols like cable channels. It's not far fetched at all.

tony1015• 9 years ago

Here's a screenshot from the Portuguese ISP's pricing page: https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701871092441088

Exactly like a cable bundle.

rory0965• 9 years ago

Portugal... lacks any kind of net neutrality.

Last I checked, Portugal is in the European Union. Presumably it has the same net neutrality rules the rest of the EU does.

zouhair2• 9 years ago

What would stop ISPs from turning the Internet to Cable if Net Neutrality is removed?

BoorishBears6• 9 years ago

Other than common sense?

Targeted policy?

y2bd• 9 years ago

When SOPA was going on so-and-so years ago, there was a similar bout of over-exaggerated hysteria to get people in action. I was against it back then, but I think the last couple of years have shown that panic and outrage is what actually gets people motivated to do anything, rather than straight, boring facts. Why not harness it for something good then?

rory0965• 9 years ago

I'm sorry, what? The lesson of the last couple years is that we should act more like extremists drumming up outrage with misinformation?

veidr4• 9 years ago

You are wrong. One of the many bad consequences of this legislation is that Internet service will almost certainly become exactly like cable TV, as has already happened in places without such rules, in that you will be allowed to access a subset of the Internet for free/cheap, and will have to pay more for broader access.

Why on earth would you think this would not happen? Because the tiny handful of telecom and cable companies, already protected from competition by various laws and regulations, will decide to leave hundreds of millions of dollars on the table so that people like them more?

adventured4• 9 years ago

Why on earth would you think this would not happen?

How about the fact that in the prior 20+ years it did not happen. Comcast was just as powerful five years ago, as they are today. The access market was just as limited in terms of competition, 5 or 10 years ago.

Your premise is that due to limited competition, it must occur. If that were how things actually worked, it would have occured before net neutrality in a very big way.

gt_5• 9 years ago

All other privately controlled electronic media does that, and you haven’t offered any reason to expect less here, so why not?

Of course, net neutrality is an issue of control and regulation. Losing net neutrality, mind you, involves private companies having less restraint and more control. What will they do with it? Reddit doesn’t know for sure any more than you do, and that’s the problem, of course.

zackelan2• 9 years ago

The cable bundling isn't scare-mongering, it's a real scenario (but a worst-case one).

It also serves the purpose of being something I can explain to less-technical relatives at the Thanksgiving table, and they immediately grasp the importance. If I started talking about Title II and common carriers and peering agreements it would have nowhere near the same impact.

caburlingame• 9 years ago

Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.

tony1015• 9 years ago

ISP-funded lobbyists seem to have a lot of sway.

Ajit Pai's FCC is against net neutrality as a result.

The fact that Pai was Verizon's top lawyer doesn't help, either.

mlamat• 9 years ago

I'm not convinced. Why am I supposed to take sides in a fight between two industries?

zackelan2• 9 years ago

If you're unconvinced, you should default to supporting net neutrality. It's the status quo, the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is on the people wishing to make this fundamental change to the structure of the internet.

tony1015• 9 years ago

Because the ISPs control your Internet access.

They don't compete with each other.

Without net neutrality, they can prioritize, slow down, or block any site or content they want to.

Many people cannot simply switch away.

They have only one ISP to choose from.

You can switch away from Facebook whenever you wish.

memeCrasher4• 9 years ago

What makes you think you're taking sides between two industries?

The way I see it, and probably why Google et al don't seem to be throwing up a recent fuss anymore, is that the big tech companies and industry giants can cut deals with the major ISP's to avoid throttling or provide services/expertise to the ISP's. So the end result is turning Google et al into their OWN monopolies. (e.g. Comcast partners with Youtube to deliver streaming video!)

Now you get telecom monopolies AND service/content monopolies.

Truly the best of both worlds.

_m8fo• 9 years ago

One could argue that without net neutrality, internet providers could provide substantially cheaper internet services -- e.g. just Facebook for $1 a month.

However that breaks down once you consider the fact that it's not practical at all. Not to mention that providers would have no reason to offer such cheap offerings, either.

adventured4• 9 years ago

Not to mention that providers would have no reason to offer such cheap offerings, either.

Sure they might. Large companies with deep pockets subsidize the premise to their own benefit (whatever that happens to be). In your example, let's say instead it's $3 per month for just Facebook services (FB, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc). Comcast partners with Facebook on the effort, in which Facebook pays a few dollars per month to subsidize the user plan.

Facebook currently derives something close to $9 per month from US & Canadian members. They hit 45.6% net income margins last quarter, which is extraordinary. They're set to become the greatest pound for pound profit machine in world history, they can afford to use some of that margin to further lock in their monopoly by purchasing preferential access treatment in numerous ways.

gt_5• 9 years ago

Is anyone arguing that? Links?

analog31• 9 years ago

It occurs to me that ISP's would not be the only people who would want to get in on the game. Suppose Facebook saw that ISP's were selling Facebook access. This practically invites Facebook to charge the ISP's for access to Facebook.

KaoruAoiShiho3• 9 years ago

I'm against net neutrality. It's essentially a wealth transfer from the infrastructure industry to the ad industry. It's pretty dumb imo.

foota• 9 years ago

How?

tony1015• 9 years ago

ISPs are free to compete with Google, Facebook, etc by offering competitive web services.

Instead, ISPs want to leverage their almost-exclusive control of Internet access to unfairly crush competition.

Users can choose not the use Facebook. Many users cannot choose not to use Comcast, because Comcast is the only ISP in the area.

Lack of competition among ISPs make them different from web companies.

gt_5• 9 years ago

So if we get rid of net neutrality, we get less ads? That’ll be the day.

The “infrastructure industry” huh? The internet, of course, should be treated as a utility.

TimTheTinker• 9 years ago

What makes you think ending net neutrality would negatively affect the ad industry? They'll keep right on making their money, only they'll have one more venue -- ISPs injecting ads into other people's (non-HTTPS) pages.

ISPs are a natural monopoly and therefore must be carefully and thoroughly regulated, just like any other utility. Their job ought to be to provide a regulated standard of service at a regulated price, no more & no less -- just like your water and electric utilities.

pjc504• 9 years ago

The "infrastructure industry" are rentiers in the classical sense: they are rewarded for holding and maintaining a capital asset which can't be easily replicated.

martin1975• 9 years ago

Well, Ajit Pai says it stifles investments. Apparently investments fell by 5% or so over a period of time since the Title II classification. While I love NN, I also hate no viable competition to cable/ISP monopolies. I don't think NN would be an issue if everyone had at least 3 viable choices of broadband providers. That's the right (tm) way to address it, or should I say market-based, by fostering competition via policy.

tony1015• 9 years ago

Lack of competition is because:

1) ISPs agree not to compete; and

2) It is expensive for new entrants to build infrastructure.

It would be ideal to solve NN with free market.

But the ISPs have monopolies that prevent competition.

Making net neutrality necessary today.

thomastjeffery5• 9 years ago

Apparently investments fell by 5% or so over a period of time since the Title II classification.

That is a correlation expressed as a causation.

xbmcuser• 9 years ago

I think the free market proponents are harming US infrastructure and in the future competitiveness. Like roads and bridges etc are built with taxes. The internet infrastructure needs to be built or at least controled by the government federal, state or city. I like what Singapore did got bids and fixed prices for fiber deployment. Now all the isp's have to compete for providing services and the fiber deployer is paid the same by all of them. That is probably the best and cheapest way to build infrastructure. Currently in the US you have 2-3 companies doing their own fiber deployment in the same areas at 2-3 times the cost.

kelnos9• 9 years ago

Removing net neutrality regulation will absolutely not increase competition in the ISP space. Why would it? Because then there'd be potentially more money in it, based on all the new ways ISPs could screw with customers?

First off, no: we don't allow any random company to dig up our roadsides to lay cable, and that's a good thing.

But let's say we did. So you want to attract competition by showing the newcomers that they can make more money than in the net-neutrality era by engaging in anti-customer behavior? How is _that_ good? Or are you expecting more competitors to come in out of the goodness of their hearts and "settle" for building a current-style (quite lucrative) ISP business without that behavior, making less money?

rtx4• 9 years ago

Yes, because it looks like government overreach and against natural justice. I think US government should buy the wires from these companies and allow anyone to use them as ISP.

Then there is a second lot who use peering agreements and CDNs.

thomastjeffery5• 9 years ago

There really isn't a sound argument against net neutrality.

Many do argue that the FCC shouldn't have the authority to regulate the internet, and often argue that idea to subtly change the subject.

If someone argues to abolish something, they should either argue in favor of a replacement, or argue that that thing should not exist at all. Unfortunately, I haven't heard even a flawed version of either argument.

Another faux argument I hear is the classic, "I am libertarian, and therefore must be against regulation of any form, and you can't change my mind." Obviously, that isn't an argument at all, and abusing libertarian ideology to look like an argument like that is seriously disappointing to any serious thoughtful libertarian, such as myself. This problem isn't specific to libertarianism either, but it is very popular in that community.

The core tenet to every position (not argument) I have heard against net neutrality is simply a position against regulation. The problem is that in the United States, we need to regulate ISPs, for several reasons:

1. There isn't enough competition: There are 6 ISPs in the US that control the majority of the market, and the majority of Americans are left with only one choice for >20mbit internet.

2. Net Neutrality is necessary to cultivate a free market of businesses that use the internet. Without net neutrality, the already centralized market of ISPs would cultivate centralized markets for each type of business that uses the internet.

TL;DR It is totally reasonable to be wary of regulation, or of the implementation of regulation. It may even be reasonable to consider net neutrality to be worthless or unnecessary in a truly free market, that has real competition between ISPs, but that isn't today's reality, so we would need to tackle that problem first.

rtx4• 9 years ago

If we want something for the public good, it should be publically funded.

djellybeans• 9 years ago

The problem is most libertarians can't actually focus on winnable issues like the ones you describe because the fringe of the party spends its time yelling about how taxes are theft, stripping on stage, and promoting secession.

The fringe refuses to see the massive risk of not supporting net neutrality by government.

19guid4• 9 years ago

1. Even if it prevents some of the worst abuses by incumbents, net neutrality regulation isn't going to create more competition.

In fact, if net neutrality regulation creates additional compliance costs it might actually reduce competition by increasing the barriers to entry for new ISPs.

2. I think most people would agree that the Internet should generally remain a level playing field for all businesses.

However, it's not clear that net neutrality regulation is necessary to maintain such a level playing field. It wasn't necessary in the past. Moreover, there is potential for consumer benefit associated with some kinds of content discrimination, which net neutrality regulation might unjustly prohibit.

The reality is that if the US broadband industry was competitive we wouldn't be having this argument. We should fix that first, then see if we still need net neutrality regulation.

bnjms• 9 years ago

Something I never see considered is that markets exist in a context. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that as a rule of thumb regulation should be eliminated and that competition is good. Both towards improving consumers lives. But it isn't reasonable to assume these two tenets are always aligned or to take them as ends unto themselves.

klokoman• 9 years ago

Honestly when I see other libertarians speaking against net neutrality I suffer a lot. Good to see at least there is one other that understands the pro-nn arguments

bko3• 9 years ago

There are arguments against net neutrality. Check out the NoNetNeutrality subreddit if you're curious [0].

The most convincing argument IMO is that it hurts people's internet access by sniffling innovation. It happened in India when Facebook tried to provide free "basic internet" access to poor rural Indians [1]. It was blocked on the ground of net neutrality since although it would provide access to very useful sites (weather, news, wikipedia, and yes, facebook), it was a sort of walled garden. Considering the alternative of no internet access or limited internet access, I think most people would agree that basic internet could have been a life saver to these people.

The other strong argument against net neutrality is that it's a trojan horse for internet regulation. When you have a legal framework for a regulatory body to tell and ISP you have to provide equal aaccess to "legitimate" content, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to consider that the natural extension of this is to tell the ISP they must block all "illegitimate" content

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/NoNetNeutrality/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Basics

mediocrejoker7• 9 years ago

I think there is a more nuanced libertarian argument that you haven't mentioned, and that is not so much "I am against all regulation" as much as "I think regulation is generally bad for efficiency and/or disagree with it on moral grounds so I want to be convinced why it is necessary."

In other words, I want to be convinced that:

1) There is a problem here at all. The regulation that is being repealed was only introduced 2 years ago; how did we get along before that?

2) This problem can be solved by this regulation (not all regulation achieves its goals, and sometimes it is even counter productive).

3) Regulation is the best/only solution for this problem (what other solutions to the problem described in 1 have been proposed, and why are they not suitable)

I think serious answers to these types will be far more convincing than the typical simplified arguments along the lines of "What if comcast creates a competitor to netflix and prioritizes its own streaming service".

TL;DR: I think some libertarians are not so much against regulation as they are skeptical of it, and are willing to be convinced that certain regulations are good, on a case-by-case basis.

hitekker2• 9 years ago

Agreed. Serious opposition to net neutrality is premised upon a reflexive, blinding hatred of government.

In their minds, any form of goverment is evil, and if it didn’t exist, we’d all live in paradise, free from chemtrails and tax sheets.

After going through these arguments and others linked here, I can safely say it's all excuses and handwaves; a thin veneer over an anarachist misanthropy.

Which isn’t too different from other conspiracy circles actually.

ben9408302984322• 9 years ago

We have had the internet for a long time without net neutrality why do we all of sudden need it?

sandmansandine• 9 years ago

This is horrible argument.

We had cars before seat belt laws why do we all of sudden need it?

We had cars before airbags why do we all of sudden need it?

We've has guns before gun control so why do we all of sudden need it?

Edit: People have been giving birth for a long time without doctors so why do we all of sudden need it?

monocasa• 9 years ago

During the dial up days, the last mile connection (the phone company) was under heavy Title II regulation.

dllu2• 9 years ago

Some organizations such as the Wikimedia Foundation, Google, and Facebook believe that their services are more important than others. As such, they consider themselves deserving of cheaper, free, or the "fast lane" internet, especially in less developed areas without sufficient infrastructure to serve all websites. The rationale is that providing a limited set of websites for free is better than if those areas have no access to internet at all.

Note: The views of the mentioned organizations do not necessarily reflect my own views.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Basics

[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net...

komali2• 9 years ago

I want to understand this better, but I can't grasp the concept of a "fast lane" in anything but an artificial sense - how can an ISP create a "fast lane" for a website - can't they only create "slow lanes" for everything BUT "fast laned" websites?

bduerst4• 9 years ago

Isn't Google's project loon open internet, compared to Facebooks free basics?

oever• 9 years ago

[1] has this quote "Net neutrality serves all Internet users – rich as poor – by providing equal access to diverse content online. We support net neutrality, and believe it is crucial for a healthy, free, and open Internet." and "The Wikimedia Foundation believes that the principle of net neutrality is critical to the future of the open Internet."

But the offering of Wikipedia Zero clashes with the idea of net neutrality.

seibelj• 9 years ago

I’m against net neutrality if you are allowed to choose your ISP. Where I live (Boston) I only have Comcast. Trees even block satellite. If we allowed any ISP to lease the line from Comcast and let me choose service, it would be different. As I only have Comcast, it is a monopoly and I’m opposed. But with true competition, I could choose from a range of ISP’s, even theoretically free broadband that would be ad supported.

steanne• 9 years ago

that only works as long as they actually compete on neutrality rather than collude.

19guid4• 9 years ago

I've posted this comment before in another thread:

I oppose net neutrality regulation. In principle, I don't think there's anything wrong with an ISP prioritizing certain kinds of traffic over others, so long as it does not have an anti-competitive effect.

For example, I don't see how Netflix paying Comcast to zero-rate Netflix traffic is fundamentally different from Amazon contracting with mail carriers to subsidize the cost of shipping for Amazon purchases, or even -- to use an example another commenter made -- an appliance manufacturer contracting with electrical utilities to subsidize the cost of electricity used by their appliances. So long as Comcast makes its zero-rating program available to all content providers -- including their own -- on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, I don't think there are any competition issues.

I've heard people argue that zero-rating makes it harder for smaller content providers to compete, since they won't have the resources to subsidize their customers' traffic. As I said in another comment, that's just the nature of business. Being big affords you certain advantages, like economies of scale. This makes it easier to compete on price. Smaller companies have to compete in other ways.

In my view, the real problem with the telecom industry in the United States is a lack of competition [0], a problem caused at least in part by municipal [1] and state [2] governments. With more competition, net neutrality would be a non-issue. Consumers would just stop using ISPs that unfairly discriminate between traffic.

[0] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/410353/net-neutrality-...

[1] https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju...

[2] http://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblock...

linkregister• 9 years ago

The reason why I and some other HN commenters (and L3 Communications) find this argument bizarre is because of the concept of transit traffic charges being applied to the last mile, which previously was not an industry practice.

Comcast's customers are requesting the data; if Comcast were a second tier backbone, or an AS between two others, then it would make sense to charge for traffic, as it doesn't benefit. But the traffic going to Comcast is there to benefit its subscribers, without which, Comcast doesn't make enough money. The most bizarre thing is that if the customers were to upload the same amount of data back to the sites, then they wouldn't be charged, as the data was symmetrical!

Why would an ISP be able to charge other AS's for sending traffic to its own customers? If there were even a single competitor in that region, this dynamic would change completely.

neuterlize22• 9 years ago

In principle, I don't think there's anything wrong with an ISP prioritizing certain kinds of traffic over others, so long as it does not have an anti-competitive effect.

Can't have that if there is no competitive ISP you can change to, if you don't like this NN violating ISP.

For example, I don't see how Netflix paying Comcast to zero-rate Netflix traffic is fundamentally different from Amazon contracting with mail carriers to subsidize the cost of shipping for Amazon purchases

This analogy breaks down immediately, because Comcast is already getting Netflix traffic for free. There is no toll that needs to be subsidized, no charge that needs to be zero rated. Comcast is just blackmailing Netflix for protection money.

or even -- to use an example another commenter made -- an appliance manufacturer contracting with electrical utilities to subsidize the cost of electricity used by their appliances.

Another bad analogy. There is no "cost of electricity" equivalent incurred by Comcast. The Netflix bits are free to Comcast.

So long as Comcast makes its zero-rating program available to all content providers -- including their own -- on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, I don't think there are any competition issues.

You do realize that this effectively sets up Comcast as the gatekeeper to the Internet? Do you really want Comcast to be able to decide what's on your Interwebz?

That's even before we get into the fact that requiring to contract with Comcast before you can offer any online service is a barrier to entry and a competitive barrier.

The whole idea is absurd. This way lies the Balkanization of the Internet and Internet fiefdoms.

We already tried something similar and it was a shitshow. Remember how insane and difficult it was to offer premium and value add SMS services back in the days, when you had to cut deals with every single cell phone company before you could offer your service?

I've heard people argue that zero-rating makes it harder for smaller content providers to compete, since they won't have the resources to subsidize their customers' traffic. As I said in another comment, that's just the nature of business. Being big affords you certain advantages, like economies of scale. This makes it easier to compete on price. Smaller companies have to compete in other ways.

So that's your solution? Screw the small guys?

Lets institutionalize a protection racket, so that only big players can offer service because they can afford to grease the right palms.

In my view, the real problem with the telecom industry in the United States is a lack of competition [0], a problem caused at least in part by municipal [1] and state [2] governments. With more competition, net neutrality would be a non-issue. Consumers would just stop using ISPs that unfairly discriminate between traffic.

Now you are on the right track. However none of this helps with the immediate problems. Most people have a monopoly provider. You can't change providers if there are no options. Even if we start now, there won't be another option for years.

Meanwhile monopoly providers will use their monopoly to extract monopoly rents, both from customers and online services, best they can. We should not give them permission to gouge more by repealing NN.

As to your list of problems, you forgot to add the FCC killing line sharing due to the Brand X case. If we had that, then we could theoretically have had competition even over a monopoly last mile infrastructure.

kelnos9• 9 years ago

... so long as it does not have an anti-competitive effect.

Soooo... you're in favor of net neutrality regulation, then.

arca_vorago3• 9 years ago

Everything you talk about is contrary to the current reality, and it boggles the mind the mental gymnastics you are putting yourself through to get there.

ISPs should be dumb pipes, the end.

mikeash3• 9 years ago

I think your mail analogy falls apart because mail carriers are end-to-end, while ISPs are part of a much larger heterogeneous network. If Amazon can get a special deal from FedUps to deliver a package from their warehouse to my door, that's reasonable since it's just a standard business deal exchanging services for money.

The international postal network is a bit more analogous. Let's say you order something from Widget Industrie in France. They pay La Poste to send it to your door in the US. La Poste transfers it to USPS, and pays USPS part of the postage to handle their end of it. Now imagine that USPS leaves your package on the warehouse floor for three weeks because Widget Industrie didn't sign up for their "expedited service" plan. Widget Industrie has never even talked to USPS, maybe doesn't even know that USPS exists.

Of course, international mail is regulated and has had "mail neutrality" since the 19th century, so you don't have to worry about that.

If some company wants to provide specialized data services so that Netflix can send data through their service to customers, that's fine with me. But that's not "the internet." These companies should decide whether they want to provide "internet access" or just specialized paid data access. Back to the mail analogy, FedEx and UPS have much more flexibility in terms of how they operate than USPS does, but as a consequence they don't get to participate in the international mail system.

And indeed, this already happens. Many ISPs provide phone and TV services separate from "internet" services. Nobody is complaining that Netflix can't get into your cable TV package, even though it's all just digital bits on the wire these days. But they don't call it "internet service." When they call a service that, there are certain expectations.

I agree that a lack of competition is the major problem here. If any given ISP customer had a dozen services to choose from, this would all go away. But that's a vastly more difficult problem. Saying we shouldn't worry about net neutrality because the real solution is competition is like saying we shouldn't worry about social security because the real problem is aging. Yes, if we solved aging we wouldn't need social security, but that's not a realistic approach.

darklajid2• 9 years ago

Actually I've just stumbled across a very(!) active HN poster that seems to be against it on a popular micro blogging platform..

The common counter argument seems to be that "Regulation is bad for the open market" and that "Better options would come up if an ISP starts doing weird shit, if the market demands it".

It's interesting to me that the very same people seem to be pro Freedom of Press/Freedom of Speech (as a German, the US Freedom of Speech is something I'm not used to, something that doesn't align with my culture/upbringing), but feel different about this subject because it involves a "market"?

piokoch• 9 years ago

"Regulation is bad for the open market" - that's the root of the problem here. If it weren't for various "licences", "concessions", "permits" to become mobile operator or be allowed to install your cables then we will not need a discussion about net neutrality.

Definitely the bar to become ISP is too high, lower it and the problem will be gone. I don't belive that people don't want to become ISP just like that - something is wrong here.

On the other hand I have to say that sane regulations make sense, for instance mobile operators in Poland who own hardware infrastructure are obliged by law to sell bandwith to virtual operators when requested. That indeed lowered prices and provided better serivces including mobile internet. However, to have a full picture, I need to say that at the down of mobile telephony in Poland, initial investment and infrastructure was build by companies owned or controlled by the state, so, to some extent, infrastructure was payed from public money and later sold to 100% private entities.

pjc504• 9 years ago

It's interesting to me that the very same people seem to be pro Freedom of Press/Freedom of Speech (as a German, the US Freedom of Speech is something I'm not used to, something that doesn't align with my culture/upbringing), but feel different about this subject because it involves a "market"?

That's Libertarianism. Everything done by government is bad, everything done by businesses is good. Looking at the actual effects is verboten.

vlunkr• 9 years ago

If you check out /r/libertarian, there is lots of debate over this idea right now.

trymas• 9 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_again...

zaarn5• 9 years ago

Yes. Some people I know argue that they'd rather wait-and-see rather than just flatout deny it, quote, "Because I've been screwed other by Internet Companies and Cable Companies have been rather nice so far. I think I'd rather pay less for my Internet to only use Facebook tbqf"

Cthulhu_• 9 years ago

The arguments against net neutrality often focus on crappy connections; on 3G networks and early DSL it was common to have rate limits, which made people be very careful with how much internet they used, and/or additional fees above a certain bandwidth usage - similar to utilities like electricity and water (although IDK why there was never really much pay-per-megabyte internet, usually it's a flat fee).

The arguments against net neutrality are related to that; instead of limiting how much people use to keep the pipes open and fast enough so to speak, it's giving certain services preferential treatment, so that in the case of limited bandwidth those aren't disrupted.

Of course, it's a silly thing; most landlines, especially in the cities, will have fiber connections at least up until a local distributor box, and in some cases to the door. This has many gigabits of capacity, which should be enough for everyone.

The thing is that apparently, investments in bandwidth aren't being done enough. Google gave it a good try with their fiber service, but had to give up - probably underestimating how expensive it is, or they were blocked by the existing ISPs that didn't tolerate competition.

TL;DR, I think the problem isn't available bandwidth or whatever, it's competition, or the lack thereof, and investments, or the lack thereof.

cr0sh• 9 years ago

Google gave it a good try with their fiber service, but had to give up - probably underestimating how expensive it is, or they were blocked by the existing ISPs that didn't tolerate competition.

Google gave up partly thanks to ALEC lobbying and laws, probably lobbied for via the incumbent regional ISPs.

m333t• 9 years ago

It's a made up issue. "Net neutrality" doesn't mean a free internet. It means a free internet regulated by the FCC.

Almost nobody is against a free internet. A lot of people such as myself are against the FCC being in charge of regulating it. Competition and the FTC's anti-trust authority have kept the internet free for decades and will continue to do so in the future.

The people pushing "net neutrality" want to transfer power to the FCC because the FCC will go beyond maintaining fair access to the internet. They'll next move into regulating content as they have done with television and radio. That's the real goal.

anthony_romeo2• 9 years ago

You are deliberately being deceptive to fool people into agreeing with you.

Net Neutrality is a mandate that ISPs cannot prioritize data from one website over another. It's a regulation to ensure that Comcast cannot effectively censor websites it doesn't like by hiding it behind a slow lane of sorts. We know that ISPs have attempted to throttle Netflix's content, which is what prompted the recent regulatory changes in 2015.

What evidence do you have that net neutrality will necessarily lead to government censorship of the Internet?

Why is net neutrality an essential component for the government to censor content?

paul79862• 9 years ago

What these comments are against net neutrality and are appearing on Hacker News? We are innovators that without neutrality us little guys/girls will suffer.

Are all these comments fake/propaganda? I wouldn’t be surprised!

arca_vorago3• 9 years ago

Cue discussion of sockpuppetry as a service (not joking, this is a real issue), given the FCC website comment drama, I wouldn't be surprised if the ISPs and the FCC have hired a "persona management" company to forum slide.

newman8r• 9 years ago

I'm glad that people are open minded here and willing to engage in rational discussion despite holding differing viewpoints. Lots of communities on the web seem to be echo chambers on this topic - makes me thankful for sites like HN.

Shivetya• 9 years ago

it depends on what we mean about "net neutrality". Too many just assume what it means and does. considering how well we did before the agency changed the rules in 2014 I fail to see how it was all going to implode.

Oh, forgot about the big money players who want to exploit it for their own purposes and thus portray anything which interferes with it as end of the world; namely google and similar service providers. throw in big money investors like Soros and the Knight group and you can see this is being played just like politics, people putting their money where the biggest return is. The biggest return is having super large companies free reign to use the net how they want regardless how it impacts smaller providers and smaller ISPs.

Which side was I on? Can you tell? That is the issue. People are assuming too much.

oh, since 2014 broad band deployment has dropped. odd how that works.

em3rgent0rdr• 9 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_again...

Also since you're curious, Pai recently gave his views: http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/21/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-po...

ythn2• 9 years ago

The best argument I've heard is that Telecomms have spent X billion dollars of their own money building out infrastructure and NN makes their infrastructure public utility lines that they won't get compensated for.

Nazzareno• 9 years ago

Internet money is made by the "over-the-top" (Google, Facebook & co.) leaving ISP to pay for the infrastructure. Net neutrality will allow ISP to bill users not only on bandwidth, but also based on what you do on the net. Ie: do you want a fast Youtube? Someone will have to pay (google or the users). They will be allowed to slow down some websites and speed up others, and that's really bad.

ryan-allen• 9 years ago

The US Government voted to bail out the corrupt bankers back in 2008, which I see as much more significant in terms of screwing over the general populace.

I'm afraid that this is the inevitable future we're going to be living in in terms of net neutrality, I believe it's only a matter of time.

uluyol• 9 years ago

Net neutrality prevents your ISP from charging you based on the content you view, not the other way around.

I don't see how Google or Facebook fit in. By paying Comcast, I pay for them to build out their network and connect me to the whole internet. Why does Google's profits matter?

pritambaral2• 9 years ago

Net neutrality will allow ISP to bill users not only on bandwidth, but also based on what you do on the net

That is the opposite of Net Neutrality.

Clanan• 9 years ago

I'm on the fence regarding this issue. The scaremongering on both sides is absolutely ridiculous. The planned order hasn't even been released! On the one hand, I can see why monopolistic powers in the hands of ISPs would be bad, but I like that the order would restore "police" powers to the FTC instead of the FCC, and I can't blame ISPs for wanting a piece of the $ pie. And it's not like the internet was a horrible wasteland until 2015.

But then again, Pai plan proponents keep saying this will spawn more innovation and improve utilities. That sounds pretty dubious and I haven't seen much proof. I don't recall any big innovation suddenly being stifled in 2015.

In my perfect world, the regulatory power would go back to the FTC but it would at the same time release a plan for opening up internet utility access so small players can compete with the big ones.

neuterlize8• 9 years ago

The planned order hasn't even been released!

Be that time it'll probably be too late.

On the one hand, I can see why monopolistic powers in the hands of ISPs would be bad, but I like that the order would restore "police" powers to the FTC instead of the FCC,

The FTC is not the correct body to "police" broadband.

and I can't blame ISPs for wanting a piece of the $ pie.

I can. They are already getting paid. They should not be able to go back for seconds.

And it's not like the internet was a horrible wasteland until 2015.

That's because network neutrality was the default state before. It's only now that is becoming feasible both from a technical and business perspective to violate network neutrality.

But then again, Pai plan proponents keep saying this will spawn more innovation and improve utilities. That sounds pretty dubious and I haven't seen much proof. I don't recall any big innovation suddenly being stifled in 2015

Yeah, that's just a load of bullshit. CEOs have gone on record that NN will not affect business or investments.

In my perfect world, the regulatory power would go back to the FTC but it would at the same time release a plan for opening up internet utility access so small players can compete with the big ones.

Too bad we already had that, minus the FTC part. Fat chance of getting it back.

thisisit• 9 years ago

Playing the devil's advocate here - Don't all big media companies rely on some form of CDN providers who themselves have some form of deals and agreements with ISPs or Internet exchange. Example - Netflix in India:

https://www.medianama.com/2017/05/223-netflix-begins-directl...

In which case how does this law change anything? And what effect this might have on CDN providers?

joantune2• 9 years ago

No, no, no.

CDN is different than throttling your Internet.

A CDN is like having a local power generator in your neighborhood, throttling your Internet is like charging your house more for electricity, because the electrical company prefers your neighbor.

cobbzilla5• 9 years ago

Best argument for NN: Let's freeze things now (and saddle every startup/mom'n'pop ISP with Ma Bell-style regulation) so the oligarchs don't become ever more powerful

Best argument against NN: Entrenching today's power brokers will not bode well for the future and will kill all of the smaller players.

neuterlize8• 9 years ago

Your arguments don't make much sense.

Network neutrality is not Ma Bell style regulation. NN will not freeze things. Don't know which oligarchs you are referring to, but any NN laws are unlikely to stop them 'garching.

Killing NN is unlikely to kill all the small players. In fact they might rather thrive by using NN as a competitive tool.

cobbzilla5• 9 years ago

The "NN regulations" that the FCC adopted specifically classified Internet services as Title II "telecommunication services", subject to 1930s-style telecom regulations. Yes, these are "Ma Bell" style regulations.

I presume you don't believe in the existence of selective enforcement in industries where the government holds massive regulatory power? Why does it seem somehow that the most powerful incumbents are never punished, but smaller upstarts are crushed (or not even started) due to the regulatory burden? NN makes this worse.

Pai merely proposes to move things back to the way they were since the beginning of Internet Time to 2015, way back when the Internet was a Title I "information service", subject to much less formal regulation by the FCC. This is met with furious uproar.

fractalf• 9 years ago

Every two three years we have to do the same fight over and over again? :/

Eupolemos3• 9 years ago

Well, not after you lose. I think this time is it.

However, it is "merely" a symptom of the US political system not being sensitive to the citizens' wants and needs. Or no longer being a democracy by modern standards, if you want to be dramatic.

kadenshep7• 9 years ago

However, it is "merely" a symptom of the US political system not being sensitive to the citizens' wants and needs.

No. Stop saying this. It completely muddies the water on what's actually going on here. People DID vote for this. They voted for their reps. And they voted for reps of a very particular political bent.

Elections have consequences.

The electorate chose this. Freely and willingly. The electorate being completely unqualified to understand issues ranging from technology to healthcare to economics isn't really a fault of the U.S. political system at this point.

Stop giving the people that vote for these reps (and the President) free passes and address the root issue. They have voted this way for decades and will continue to do so and no amount of changing or tweaking the political system is really going to have any noticeable effect on the policies they will support. The U.S. political system is listening to the electorate. Stop pretending it's not.

propman• 9 years ago

This is all very confusing for me. Obviously I understand the NN arguments and I accept the Ajit Pai arguments though I think it's very naive to think that investments in infrastructure would be made without other significant incentives, all which seem unlikely to occur.

My question is about 2015. Did we have NN before 2015? What changed then and how would it differ from before? I was always under the assumption we had NN.

neuterlize8• 9 years ago

Yes, we had NN before 2015. It was the default state and how the Internet was originally built.

We used to have competition for Internet services (dialup and DSL), now we don't (most people access the Internet through cable which is a monopoly).

The reason why we are losing NN now is because it's become feasible from a technical and business perspective to violate NN.

Pai's arguments are pure unadulterated bullshit. Abolishing NN will not increase investments or create competition. CEOs are on record that NN will not impact business or investments.

phaus• 9 years ago

We used to have competition for Internet services (dialup and DSL), now we don't (most people access the Internet through cable which is a monopoly).

Calling Dial-Up and DSL "competition" is downplaying how shitty things were even in 2015. They are technically competition, but effectively and practically they aren't because the modern web doesn't even work with dial-up and in the many places stuck with the low-end of DSL it is next to worthless too.

narrator• 9 years ago

China does not have net neutrality. Almost everything coming into the country from outside is utterly filtered to hell and back. They do have a vibrant tech economy though. So they have their own Google (Baidu). They have their own Twitter (Weibo), WhatsApp(WeChat), Amazon(Tao Bao). So in the future of no net-neutrality, we'll see ISPs being value-added resellers of their own regionally partitioned versions of these services, probably developed by various ISVs. It will be a bit like the BBS days I imagine. It goes along with the Trump political theme of anti-globalization.

colordrops• 9 years ago

They have their own services in China, but it's not only about foreign traffic. Put up a site and you'l find that it doesn't work too well in other regions of the nation, with ISPs throttling each other's traffic.

unityByFreedom6• 9 years ago

So without net neutrality, the internet as we know it really is broken. Great.

folknor4• 9 years ago

It goes along with the Trump political theme of anti-globalization.

I've never managed to connect anti-globalization with no net neutrality.

Please explain how you made that connection.

nnneuter5• 9 years ago

With no NN, you need to make deals with every ISP for your online services. It is only cost effective to do such deals in your main markets. Thus we Balkanize the Internet.

erk__2• 9 years ago

That is not a question of net neutrality, every contry have blocked websites, for some reason or another.

r3bl2• 9 years ago

Citation needed, because I sure as heck know that my country didn't.

WhoBeI• 9 years ago

Well, it can always get worse. If this thing passes and Time Warner wins in court and gets to buy AT&T..

kurtisc• 9 years ago

China does not have net neutrality. Almost everything coming into the country from outside is utterly filtered to hell and back.

The UK does have net neutrality. The UK internet is still loosely censored. I understand that a monopoly might mean a non-neutral net could be privately censored, and therefore functionally similar, but this is a distinct issue from state censorship.

zimpenfish• 9 years ago

The UK does have net neutrality.

Do we have any protection of that? As best I know (which isn't much), UK net neutrality is more along the lines of a polite understanding than anything enshrined in law.

(And it seems to be wobbling - cf. Three now offering you free data for Netflix/Spotify streaming, etc.)

baobrain• 9 years ago

Comparing China to the US is a false equivalency.

For one, Chinese ISPs are state owned (China Telecom, China Mobile, China Unicom, Great Wall). They do not have much of a profit motive outside the typical corruption of people at the top. Even with these state owned ISPs there are multiple choices for each address as these companies share infrastructure. The sharing of infrastructure in itself is similar to local loop unbundling, which does not exist in the US.

Another thing is that the tech community thrives at the behest of the government. Every time something happens it is generally due to changes in party policy that shift favor between companies.

Partitioning services is also not necessarily good. For example, large American ISPs generally have regional monopolies if not duopolies. They also own TV channels and movie studios. What is to prevent them from offering packages of their own services that are zero rated while charging extra for others (say, Steam or a new streaming service)?

bjt2n3904• 9 years ago

Yeah... China's restrictive internet wouldn't be saved by "Net Neutrality". One of the foundational principles of the PRC is regulating what can be said. The medium is irrelevant.

I'll note that the FCC also regulates what can be said. Anyone remember when they investigated Stephen Colbert for his remarks on Trump?

Danihan3• 9 years ago

They also aren't a democracy, so not really relevant.

StreamBright• 9 years ago

What does the system of government has to do with what is relevant to an argument like this?

China is not a democracy so it is irrelevant that they are the leading economy on the planet?

ForFreedom• 9 years ago

Will users outside the US have to pay extra for netflix etc?

nnneuter5• 9 years ago

No, it's not about that.

eqtn• 9 years ago

Probably not. But if passed, it will have a ripple effect.

bananarepdev• 9 years ago

If it passes in the US, other countries will follow.

unityByFreedom6• 9 years ago

Pai's proposal will only restore freedom for corporations to charge more for content. There's no restoration of freedom to people.

When we give up our rights to corporations and captured agencies, we lose the individual freedoms that agencies like the FCC were founded to protect.

I think that, even if the FCC passes this proposal, we'll have been on record being massively against it. That will cost any representatives, republican or democrat, who support the current FCC.

America isn't about to forget the sub-par quality of its internet services, and this proposal isn't going to fix that.

joantune2• 9 years ago

Either:

There are lots of fellow hacker news readers (with significant karma) that don't know a thing about Net Neutrality.

Or: this thread is full of FUD bots to push against Net Neutrality

kelnos9• 9 years ago

No, I think there are just a decent amount of people who actually do support less regulation here. I mean, they're naive and entirely wrong about the effects of deregulation in this case, but I don't detect much in the way of intellectually dishonest discussion.

zorta• 9 years ago

there is something we can do from Italy?

unityByFreedom6• 9 years ago

I would keep a lookout for ISPs doing things like zero rating or other roundabout ways of breaking net neutrality. Arguably, net neutrality is already broken in the US since the current administration isn't going to enforce the current policy. As businesses find ways to make more short term profits here, others will probably follow the same tactics elsewhere.

gervase2• 9 years ago

Although foreign nationals cannot (effectively) write to US politicians, you should feel free to donate to pro-neutrality organizations like the EFF[0].

[0] https://www.eff.org/

ivarious2• 9 years ago

https://i.imgur.com/DhL4vKq.jpg

Indonesia doesn't have net neutrality laws. That's the screenshot of Indosat (Internet Provider)'s app where you can buy data plan from. But as you can see, they sell data plans ala carte, per application in this case. If your favorite app is not there, you're shit out of luck and have to use the more expensive universal data plan.

Not only that, last year, the biggest home internet provider (Indihome), and the biggest mobile internet provider (Telkomsel), which both are owned by the government, banned Netflix under the guise of "Netflix hasn't rated nor censored their contents based on our country's rules". The truth is that both of them are selling their own movie streaming service. Indihome has partnership with iflix, and Telkomsel with HOOQ.

Now, if you buy new prepaid number from Telkomsel, this is the kind of data fuckery you will get. https://i.imgur.com/wb6gMBo.png

vilmosi• 9 years ago

Oddly, the UK does have net neutrality and you can get those app-specific data bundles in addition to universal access.

jplayer012• 9 years ago

While the EU does have net neutrality, there are loop-holes for some forms of zero-rating (which is basically the same bullshit, just jumping through a few hoops).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating

biafra• 9 years ago

Do they block or throttle VPN traffic?

ivarious2• 9 years ago

Some ISPs throttle P2P/torrent. I don't know specifically about VPN.

reustle• 9 years ago

Just for the curious, this isn't how every ISP in Indonesia is. Friends and I have had your standard sim cards which allows you to access any site freely.

mediocrejoker7• 9 years ago

So maybe these plans are serving a different market segment. Is there any reason to believe an ISP would get rid of all their regular offerings in favour of these site-specific plans?

mediocrejoker7• 9 years ago

my first question would be how the prices of the unlimited plan compares to the regular plans of other ISPs.

In other words, are these ‘walled garden’ plans aimed towards people who would otherwise buy a regular data plan or are they aimed at people for whom the choice is a walled plan or no plan.

donkeyd• 9 years ago

The screenshot in OP's post and this[0] comment, make me think that cheap plans will mostly allow you to use apps/sites where the companies pay the ISP. These will be things like YouTube and Netflix, who need visitors for profit. Things that will be blocked by default are sites like HN, company websites, personal websites and anything else that isn't a huge company. So in the cheaper plans, the one being visited pays, in the expensive one, the one who visits pays.

In the end, it's just another revenue stream where, if they play it right, the consumer still pays the same, but the content providers also start paying. This means more money from the same bandwidth.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15757190

AnthonyMouse2• 9 years ago

In other words, are these ‘walled garden’ plans aimed towards people who would otherwise buy a regular data plan or are they aimed at people for whom the choice is a walled plan or no plan.

You say that like there's a hard line between them. No matter what it's "aimed at" it will hit people who want to save a buck and think they only need Facebook. Except that when there is a critical mass of people who no longer have the choice, Facebook's practices can become much more abusive because it becomes that much more difficult to leave. You have to convince everyone you know not only to use something else, but to use something that requires a more expensive data plan.

Moreover, consider what you're asking for, even if only lower income people subscribed. You want to take away the benefits of competition from the people with the least means. Talk about the poor get poorer.

spokewoke• 9 years ago

Charging for access to a website like this should be considered a form of piracy. The only appropriate response is a full IP range block.

jbob2000• 9 years ago

Exactly! How is Google OK with this ISP basically charging a subscription fee to use YouTube? They're essentially reselling Youtube services.

knubie• 9 years ago

If your favorite app is not there, you're shit out of luck and have to use the more expensive universal data plan.

So, under net neutrality your only option would be the "more expensive universal data plan"?

cdevs• 9 years ago

These comments here from people in other countries are clear pictures of what Americans will face if this goes through.

wildmusings2• 9 years ago

The US didn’t have Net Neutrality until two years ago, and somehow everything was just fine. There’s no need to preemptively impose heavy handed regulation to fix problems that have not yet occurred, and indeed may never occur, in the US.

Bundling seems to be the boogeyman de jour. But consumers in the US are used to universal access to the internet and would probably not respond well to such practices. And if we wanted to preemptively ban any type of internet connection except a universal one, there is no need to apply much broader and constricting Title II regulation to it.

quake• 9 years ago

The US did have NN up until two years ago, it was the default the internet was designed upon.

ryandrake• 9 years ago

The site is technically pretty neat, but honestly does anyone think a bunch of low-effort automated calls to a Congressperson's voicemail is really going to change anything? The commoners' opinions about Net Neutrality (or any issue, really) is pretty low on the list of things our so-called representatives are worried about.

nvr219• 9 years ago

My thoughts exactly.

snowmaker• 9 years ago

Calls from real people to Congress do have a real impact. Calls from a site just like this are what killed the SOPA/PIPA legislation.

lucb1e• 9 years ago

Source?

int_19h2• 9 years ago

It might, if they're in a swing district. A person who is bothered enough to find the time and effort to call, is also that much more likely to turn up and vote. So their offices do keep track of how many callers there are on various issues, and prioritize accordingly.

Sir_Cmpwn• 9 years ago

Make an appointment to meet with them in person. They're probably home for the holidays.

snarf21• 9 years ago

It has also been shown that direct negative publicity has an even bigger effect. Editorials in local papers calling out your representative are effective. Getting on the local news protesting outside your reps office is effective. Going viral on social with some kind of #MYREPisOwnedByComcast #theinternetISfreedom or something has a huge effect. Most reps have a huge ego, they don't like being in a constant spotlight of negativity.

I think our biggest problem is that a lot of these issues don't have a leader a la the civil rights movement. Even Occupy, which built to some serious momentum, didn't have sustained vision and leadership to force the changes we might want. Plus, we (incl. me) are lazy and know it could be worse (NK, China) but we are slipping faster and faster and need to rally before it really is too late.

openthito• 9 years ago

Nepal also donot have net neutrality law . Ncell and NTC are biggest cellular networks. They sell facebook plan at cheap rate and rest is comparatively more

HighPlainsDrftr• 9 years ago

I wish I knew more about wireless/WISP? There has to be a way to provide reliable 1Gbps service to residential areas. If I could find a way to provide such a service, I would certainly look to do it and provide NN myself.

Maybe I could even strike a deal with Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/etc and try to do my own double-play/triple-play sort of thing.

Does anyone have any resources regarding getting 1Gbps bandwidth to the masses?

BenjiWiebe• 9 years ago

My cousin runs a WISP. I asked him about the feasibility of using wireless to get a 100Mbps connection of 10 miles. He basically laughed at me. He also said that interference is a huge issue; after all, who doesn't have WiFi? And are you going to spend tens of thousands* of dollars to reserve a chunk of spectrum for yourself?

*I have no idea how much this would cost, probably more than I said.

amelius2• 9 years ago

Apparently, it's quite difficult to maintain net neutrality, yet its advantages to the average citizen seem enormous.

Therefore, shouldn't we fix something else instead? Like the way these laws are established?

v4tab• 9 years ago

Exactly. It is clear from this who lawmakers pay attention to and it is not the people.

dm319• 9 years ago

It's cultural.

Both the people in charge and those who put them there worship the production of money. Policies are selected based on whatever provides maximum revenue without other considerations, with the belief that a thriving economy requires this strategy.

blktiger• 9 years ago

The problem is that they think the best thing is to figure out how to make ISPs more money to increase the economy. However, what they aren't thinking about is how having net neutrality allows for companies like google and facebook to happen. Those companies are doing way more for the economy than ISPs ever have.

api3• 9 years ago

There's a core misunderstanding around net neutrality. People see it as business-stifling regulation and its removal as deregulation. This is simply false.

All last mile ISPs and wireless carriers are state-enforced oligopolies or monopolies. You can't build these things without some mix of federal, state, and local permission, and in many cases taxpayer funds helps subsidize the construction of these networks or tax breaks are provided.

Telecom is not a free market and never has been. Telecoms are not really private companies in any unfettered free market sense. They're closer to the status of majority-of-revenue government contractors like Lockheed or Raytheon. Add the revolving door they have with representatives and they're almost like state-owned industries.

Net neutrality is there to prevent a state-backed oligopoly from using its position to stifle competition in the free market. In other words it's a pro-free-market regulation that exists to protect the free market from interference by state monopolies.

I personally think it would be just as good to eliminate barriers to entry for broadband and wireless competition, but unfortunately on a pragmatic level (at least in the USA) this is orders of magnitude more difficult politically. So net neutrality is the best solution for now.

rhino3693• 9 years ago

Calling something a state-enforced oligopoly because you need permits is a huge stretch. In almost all jurisdictions a new company can apply for an ISP franchise.

I have more choices for an ISP than I have choices for a cell phone OS. Should the government enforce app-store neutrality. I have less choices for search engines. How about search engine/adsense neutrality.

The truth is net neutrality is both underbroad and overbroad in its attempts to increase competition. Sure, a cable ISP shouldn't be allowed to block netflix. But net neutrality goes further than that and doesn't allow any paid prioritization, even if such prioritization isn't anti-competitive. On the other hand, net neutrality doesn't stop your ISP from putting data caps or just increasing prices on users.

Reducing barriers to entry is far better for increasing competition.

mikeash3• 9 years ago

"Fix something else" is right on, but "instead" is highly problematic. We can try to fix multiple things.

The root of this problem and many others is that Congress and the executive are corrupt and have no particular interest in doing their job properly. Much of that stems from a bad electoral system. Fixing that is hugely important and would be highly useful. However, that fix is likely to take a long time. Certainly there's no hope of fixing it by December 14th.

amelius2• 9 years ago

Yeah, but after fixing the "smaller" issues, we tend to forget about the bigger issues. Also, we lose leverage, and the problem quickly becomes abstract.

LoonyBalloony3• 9 years ago

"bad electoral system."

First Past The Post Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Range Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig

Single Transferable Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

giobox• 9 years ago

Constitutional reform of that nature in most countries makes the current battle over net neutrality in the US look like a piece of cake by comparison.

If you live in a State that allows for some kind of “entrenched” statutes that are more difficult to change (the US Constitution is one such example), pushing for a right to net neutrality on that basis is probably the path of least resistance. Of course some nations, like the U.K., unfortunately have no such thing (all statutes repealable/changeable with simple majority).

austincheney3• 9 years ago

I would like regulation around online advertising and web analytics. I really get the impression that half the traffic on a modern commercial is the stuff you don't see, some of which is utterly malicious, and much of which is spyware.

That is what I would fix instead.

ahgibby• 9 years ago

Stop with the a la carte comparisons. These plans i) show that the mobile market is competitive and ii) are a way for folks to use popular data hungry apps more than they otherwise without with just a regular data plan.

oldpond• 9 years ago

Without net neutrality, the internet will become just another source of TV where you only get to see what the advertising industry and the regulators want you to see. At that point the phone in your pocket will become just a tiny TV set, and cord-cutting will become internet-cutting.

sunnykgupta• 9 years ago

While we are on the topic, may I bring up John Oliver's June 1 2014 episode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

tl;dw - For those who want to understand how closely the government is related to those who benefit from NO net-neutrality.

idibidiart4• 9 years ago

Why isn't Google fighting this? They have a backup plan?

kadenshep7• 9 years ago

Google doesn't need to care. They can out purchase speed tiers/entire ISP's to make their services extremely favorable/speedy to use or just out right prevent competition in certain areas. They own the biggest ad network in the world. This will be in their favor.

Funny how libertarian mythology doesn't really hold up to even the most basic of game theory applications.

idibidiart4• 9 years ago

Their biggest and most lucrative service is search. What if I click a link in google's search result and my ISP refuses to take me there? Or does it work differently?

atonse2• 9 years ago

More and more we need to stop thinking of a lot of these SV giants as some kinds of liberal bastions that care about the internet and free speech.

They are fortune 500 companies that ONLY care about their bottom line. Every now and then, the bottom line accidentally aligns with the public good (like spectrum auctions).

idibidiart4• 9 years ago

It should align, and I'm surprised it doesn't seem to be aligned, or they see it as an opportunity to be an ISP themselves.

Eupolemos3• 9 years ago

Removal of Net Neutrality benefits the largest players. Which is also why Americans sure as dawn will lose it with their current legally corrupt political system.

Pharylon4• 9 years ago

The battle is all but over, and Net Neutrality lost. Republicans control every branch of the government.

ythn2• 9 years ago

I don't even understand how this became a bi-partisan issue. Everyone I know, republican and democrat, are for NN. The only people that are against NN are convinced it was introduced by Obama in order to "socialize the internet"

ikeboy2• 9 years ago

Do you know many economists? See http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii

rspeer• 9 years ago

Do you know anyone who bought a T-Mobile plan that allows them to "binge on" unlimited Netflix while charging a per-gigabyte rate for other data? That's zero-rating, which is against net neutrality.

The scary images of tiered Internet packages from Portugal and Indonesia that are being passed around are also about zero-rating. They are really no different from mobile plans we have in the US, except that their advertising happens to be more brutally honest.

People like net neutrality as an abstract principle when it's described to them, but many people will gladly personally give it up to watch a TV series.

To be clear, I think this is a bad thing. I think zero-rating is anti-competitive. But there are people who love it. That's what it means to be against net neutrality.

s0ss• 9 years ago

That's a false equivalence -- Not all Republicans want to end Net Neutrality.

However it is super duper lame that a ton of politicians blindly follow party lines. Sigh.

Pharylon4• 9 years ago

First, I don't think you understand what the term "false equivalence" means.

But leaving that aside, I didn't say all Republicans are against Net Neutrality. I'm sure some are in favor of it, just like you can find the odd pro-choice or gay Republican. But the Republican Party as a whole is against NN, and has been very vocal about wanting to get rid of it. Republicans said "If we get elected we're going to get rid of Net Neutrality," and then they got elected. So, you know, no surprise here.

Balgair• 9 years ago

Well, evidence suggests that the 'battle' may be difficult, but that the 'war' is on the side of NN people. It seems that the Reps. have been given the keys to the house and promptly shoved them up their nose and into their ears. Making the argument that the Reps. have any idea what they are doing is nonsense (even by 'normal' standards of the US Gov.). Though the Reps. are 'in control' they are evidently nincompoops. Yes, they have done some 'damaging' things, but their main policy goals and bills are coming out like wet farts.

zengid• 9 years ago

If you'd like to make a public comment on the FCC's public forum (domain-link courtesy of John Oliver):

www.gofccyourself.com

LoonyBalloony3• 9 years ago

I browse voat because I want to see what conservative/trump supporters think and I came upon this thread here:

https://voat.co/v/technology/2253983

I was wondering if you guys could address these guys concerns. We need everyone on the same side. We all want a free internet. Appreciate the help.

Simon321• 9 years ago

Wow, that thread is absolutely disgusting.

Danihan3• 9 years ago

A+ concern trolling.

LoonyBalloony3• 9 years ago

If you're talking about me, I came here to understand the topic better before I commented there.

totalrobe• 9 years ago

I attempted to read some comments and address "these guys concerns" but it's just a cesspool of misinformation. They appear to think this is some authoritarian government doctrine and ignore the real world.

Here's my argument. I would be fine without any form of net neutrality IF consumers had a true choice of ISP. BUT, I've lived in 4 different states and 6 different cities in the past 12 years and have only ONCE had a choice between different ISPs. Comcast and their ilk have created monopolies in the majority of markets, therefore to enforce the free market it is necessary to force them to provide equal access to internet traffic.

wooter• 9 years ago

good video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6txA3pI0xJI

short answer:

These rules are 2 years old and did nothing good for the internet. the solution is to dissolve municipal monopolies. they do this all the time - everytime they corruptly assign a monopoly to provide a service like electricity, water, etc.

The problem is too much government and the left just wants to pile on the beaurocracy and centralize the decision making regarding the global internet in washington. Stupid.

Why shouldn't a medical monitoring company negotiate peering and higher guaranteed bandwidth so doctors can remotely with live data to ensure the safety of critical patients? [hint: ALL companies do this, it is physically impossible not to]

Because the government is scaring stupid people with the thought of higher netflix prices to grab more control of the internet that they have been illegally surveiling already. Meanwhile, they also scramble to add idiotic things like netflix taxes because they are just too idiotic and greedy. Oh not to mention the government's backwards attempts to prosecute piracy and weaken/criminalize encryption.

technical answer if you're up for some reading:

As an engineer, net neutrality is a totally misguided and unattainable. Companies that provide things like realtime communication obviously need to negotiate and guarantee lower latencies. Anyways, just like with labor and healthcare, some people just want to pretend that internet service doesn't operate under economic laws. They're always looking for some savior/excuse to abolish free enterprise like internet, automation, altruism, etc.

I like how reddit user /u/natermer puts part of it (link: https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldandBlack/comments/6mviva/whats_... ):

There are two major types of network traffic you tend to see on the internet. One is a 'elephant' type bulk transfers. These are big files, bittorrent, video streaming and such things. These types of things use a lot of the available bandwidth and can cause transfers that last many minutes to many hours. However they are latency sensitive.... It doesn't matter if it takes 1 or 10 or a 100 seconds for the packets to cross the internet just as long as you can move a LOT of packets at the same time.

The other type of data transfer you see are things that are very latency sensitive. Remote controlling of mechanics, remote monitoring, remote desktop, video conferencing, gaming, VoIP, and other types of latency sensitive protocols. These things use relatively little bandwidth compared to the 'elephants' but are extremely latency sensitive... meaning you want the transfer to go as quick as possible, but don't really need to transfer that much. The modern Internet works based on peering agreements. ISPs have multiple connections with other ISPs. many times these connections are almost ad-hoc as it depends on geography and other variables that makes some connections 'less then ideal'. These connections vary in quality, performance, latency, and cost.

If ISPs can route traffic based on protocol and provider then they can possibly save significant amount of money and improve performance for their customers. They can shuttle latency sensitive protocols over expensive links and allow bulk transfers to use massive amounts of cheap bandwidth to reduce their own and their customer's costs.

If you go 'full network neutrality' and treat each packet the same then you can have your VoIP call stuck in a FIFO buffer queue behind your Xbox's game download.. making it impossible to have phone calls.

For example: TCP/IP protocol is connection oriented and this is used for critical connections and there is a ack/nack response/reply conversation going on where clients validate and confirm packets. This means that every TCP/IP transfer is a two-way street... even if you are downloading you still have to upload some packets to confirm and continue the connection.

Bulk uploads from your home network can interfere with the acknowledgements and cause massive latency spikes and other issues unless you have a router that intellegently manages buffers and gives priority to different types of packets. You have a very fast network connected to a very slow uplink and your TCP/IP acks can get stuck behind a massive queue of bulk transfers.

This happens commonly when people are using bittorrent and they don't understand why they get fast downloads, then it throttles back to almost nothing, and then they get fast downloads again. This will continue in a saw-like fashion where you see fast performance, then massive latency spikes, and then slow performance, and then fast performance again.. repeating. Many people assume that this is caused by ISP throttling when in fact it's their own network equipment suffering from bad buffer/queue management. They will go out and buy new home routers only to see the problem get worse because the routers are as dumb as before, but now have even bigger queues and even more memory to (mis)manage. (there are VERY effective ways to fix this, btw)

I could go on and on.

Also keep in mind that the modern internet works through things called 'Content Delivery Networks' or CDNs for short. Bulk transfer of files from one side of the internet to the other side is expensive and high-latency. Co-located datacenters for webservers and small/medium business installations charge premium amounts for internet access and usage is metered on the server side. So most popular websites depend on CDNs to cache content and distribute it back out to the user in a way that is actually physically close to the user on the internet.

This can dramatically lower costs, increase availability, and improve performance and user experience.

One of the ways CDNs do this is by having private networks running in parrallel to the public internet. Sometimes they are logical networks like VPNs or they are entirely separate physical networks.

Youtube, for example, depends on Google's private Fiber network for content delivery. When you are streaming videos Google uses as little as the public internet as possible. They have connections as local to you as possible that (ideally) connect directly to your ISP's network and streams data to you.

Other CDNs depend on collocated servers in the ISP's datacenter to cache data, stream video, and other things. Thus if you take a very naive approach to network neutrality and try to say 'all packets are treated as equal' you not only possibly increase the costs for yourself and others, but also you destroy the suitability for the internet to be used for low-latency protocols AND you will do NOTHING to help start-ups be competitive with big names like Google.

DiThi• 9 years ago

good video

VERY bad video. Let me explain:

The video says shipping companies charge different fees with different speeds. And that net neutrality is like having all lines of the highway at the same speed.

That is NOT what net neutrality is about. It's about not distinguishing the content of the packages, or car passengers. No NN is like I try to send a package and deny it or charge me a fee because it contains nudes or because the receiver is black.

If ISPs can route traffic based on protocol and provider then they can possibly save significant amount of money and improve performance for their customers. They can shuttle latency sensitive protocols over expensive links and allow bulk transfers to use massive amounts of cheap bandwidth to reduce their own and their customer's costs.

That's already done (except the provider part), it's called QoS. And it can easily be done without looking where do the packets go or what they contain.

CleaningWithMud3• 9 years ago

You're seeing this as a technical issue when it is in fact a legal one. In Canada the telecommunications legislation states the principle well:

(2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.

You can still manage networks and employ CDN. But you can't arbitrarily block content.

CleaningWithMud3• 9 years ago

I don't even know where to start with that thread. It is filled with instances of complete misinformation.

I really don't understand how users there can support something that will probably result in them paying more for Internet access and limiting what they can access.

guelo• 9 years ago

The deliberately offensive 4chan-speak is designed to create a safe space that keeps people with differing view points out. So we should respect the special snowflakes and leave them alone, always.

soheil• 9 years ago

Is there a list of congressmen by state who are against Net Neutrality? It’d Be helpful to put that up somewhere easily accessible with their twitter handle etc.

Also anyone can shed some light exactly on how much money the telecom companies paid in lobbying? Can we match that or double if it’s all just about money? I’d be glad to pay a payment of up to 1/10th of my monthly income if this is going to persuade law makers reject the lobbyists demands.

thecombjelly• 9 years ago

Why are we still making appeals to corrupt politicians? We might not control the cables but we do control the content. Why don't we shut it down until we get what is right? Why not another SOPA blackout and this time it doesn't stop until net neutrality is safe?

myaso• 9 years ago

Swartz is dead. Nobody to rally behind now, no real leaders. Online communities are older and more mainstream and are getting ossified. Much more brutal competition in the web space now, can't afford to voluntarily bleed + content is no longer special if someone doesn't get their fix in 5 minutes now they go somewhere else; ethics and values cost money and lots of people in this field have neither now. Lots of people running around in tech that don't share our views ever since 'tech' went mainstream around 2012/2013. What would a black out accomplish? The people in power don't give a fuck as far as I can tell regardless of how much public outage can be generated. Maybe we will finally get mesh networking out of this.

djhworld• 9 years ago

Can anyone in the US explain why the government/FCC is so eager to abandon net netrality laws?

Was it demanded by the electorate? A promise in a manifesto or something?

I remember the topic of NN coming up a few years ago and was largely defeated after public outcry - has public mood changed since then?

mLuby• 9 years ago

TL;DR: US companies stand to benefit from reduced regulation.

This is a case where a few companies really want to be able to change their pricing structures to increase profits, and consumers in general don't want that but also aren't particularly involved. So there isn't a big public outcry (except among HN readers <3) and these companies are lobbying the FCC hard to make "business-friendly" changes. It's called concentrated benefits and diffuse costs.

austincheney3• 9 years ago

In the most simple of terms the Trump Administration is pro capitalism and strongly anti-regulatory.

axl• 9 years ago

This is simply a disagreement between content publishers and content distributors. When a big satellite TV provider acted unfavorably toward a few major television networks during contract (re)-negotiation, those select few decided not to renew their license with the satellite TV company, causing viewers to ask why they can't get their favorite channel that their neighbor still gets.

The internet works similarly in that an electronic contract is formed when an ISP attempts to access content on web server. The client/ISP "requests" the content, and the publisher agrees and serves it up. But there's nothing stopping a collective "big few" from denying access to the content based on the host name of the ISP requesting it.

Ergo, if Verizon doesn't want to play "fair" with regards to content distribution, Facebook/Google/Twitter/Netflix/Reddit and whomever else could deny access to Verizon subscribers with an ol fashioned HTTP 403 or 401.

Yes, traffic drops, people realize quickly that they can't access any of their favorite sites, things must be broken, and switch companies.

oliv__• 9 years ago

Could this be the beginning of some kind of alt-Internet being created to bypass any kind of throttling?

ken47• 9 years ago

For those who are anti net neutrality or "on the fence," if you are in tech, keep in mind that the removal of nn will likely put downward pressure on your compensation.

austincheney3• 9 years ago

How so?

ghrifter• 9 years ago

How?

imh• 9 years ago

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/21/fcc-net-neutrality...

Not only are they removing federal rules, they want to prevent states from making their own rules. That seems an extra special kind of awful. "Big Government is overstepping its bounds with regulation, so we're going to have big government step in and prevent local governments from making their own choices."

JonMontgo• 9 years ago

I staunchly support net neutrality, and believe stronger federal protections and intervention are necessary to protect the open internet and increase competition - perhaps a federal ISP run through post offices.

fyrstenberg• 9 years ago

In the mean time, and in related news (media all quiet) - the "USA Liberty Act of 2017" has passed meaning government is allowed to search our private data without a warrant:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3989...

Some more details here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/usa-liberty-act-wont-f...

MadWombat• 9 years ago

Hmm... they want name, address and phone number. And they require all the fields before they allow submitting the form. No.

Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

Related Stories