HN Gopher Feed (2017-07-12) - page 1 of 10 ___________________________________________________________________
Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet
1036 points by ghosh
https://www.blog.google/topics/public-policy/net-neutrality-day-...___________________________________________________________________
dzonga - 2 hours ago
Simple way to understand Net Neutrality, look at the way AT&T
prioritizes DirecTV Content on Mobile. It should be illegal, but
well
[deleted]
pheldagryph - 1 minutes ago
I understand why tech companies and VCs want net neutrality. But
this protest is what is wrong with Silicon Valley "culture". It's
incredibly out of touch with reality.Are we really being asked to
take this hill? Why? By whom?History will record the hundreds of
thousands of children who will die of the current-and-present
famine affecting East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. It will
only exacerbate the current, historic, and costly human migration
to Europe.This is a matter of life and death for millions. Though,
unfortunately, the cost can only be measured in human lives:
https://www.oxfam.org/en/emergencies/famine-and-hunger-crisi...
[deleted]
daveheq - 1 hours ago
When everybody relies on the internet, even moreso than phones,
it's a public utility that needs protection from the greed-feeders.
geff82 - 42 minutes ago
Greetings from Europe where we have er neutrality. Good luck to my
American friends with voting for a sane government in 3 years.
Maybe there are some remainings of the country you could have been.
ambicapter - 4 hours ago
This has been the weakest day of action I could imagine. I thought
sites were going to be throttled. Turns out its just some color
changes and, oh, reddit has a fancy "slow-loading" gif for their
website name. A real wake-up call!
code777777 - 4 hours ago
I think we need a new term and perhaps a visceral, easily
understandable metaphor.Common Joe just doesn't get it or know
what we're talking about.He instantly gets "death panel" or "fake
news." But net neutrality sounds like something fuzzy almost
benign.
dragonwriter - 4 hours ago
?Open Internet? is good, and is what the FCC policy focus has
always been labelled.
gervase - 3 hours ago
The biggest problem with terms with a positive connotation is
that both sides will claim them.For example, Comcast will
simply say "we support Open Internet" with the implication
that "Open" in this context means "We can do whatever we want
with our own lines.", i.e. complete corporate freedom. This
deliberately promotes confusion, and then whoever has the
most money wins.In my opinion, the biggest problem is that
this topic is relatively more technical than most people are
used to understanding, which makes it very difficult to
convey the various ramifications without over-simplifying.
ABCLAW - 4 hours ago
I've always thought "Anti-Internet Racketeering" described the
issue and ramifications pretty succinctly.
scottLobster - 4 hours ago
Too many syllables for a good slogan. Need something like
"It's my internet!" or "Fight internet extortion!"
amelius - 3 hours ago
Perhaps the "corporate internet"?At least it has a negative
connotation to it, while "net neutrality" has not.I'm guessing
it is easier for people to oppose something, than to support
something. Opposing something feels more urgent.
djsumdog - 3 hours ago
Many countries don't have network neutrality. In Australia,
Optus use to off "free social" where Facebook, Twitter,
Wikipedia and a few other sites didn't count against your
bandwidth.Add network neutrality legislation and it would be
very easy to lobby against: "Turnbull wants you to pay more for
Facebook and Twitter"Most people don't have an understanding of
what Quality of Service is.
abawany - 1 hours ago
The ever popular 'Free Choice/Freedom' angle? Removal of Net
Neutrality ensures that the ISP gets to decide what the
consumer watches. 'Don't let them tell you what to watch!'
(followed by horrified alpha males watching Dr. Quinn Medicine
Woman on Youtube or whatever else passes for horrifying
nowadays.)
J5892 - 1 hours ago
How dare you imply that Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman was
horrible!
abawany - 52 minutes ago
Ha, just passing along a tired old joke :). I personally
never saw the show myself but plenty of shows had a good
time making fun of it (Home Improvement, Red Green Show
(?)) I guess I stopped watching TV after the 90s sitcoms
stopped so my references are old and tired.
scottLobster - 4 hours ago
I know right? The question for me is why? Netflix has gone on
record saying "well, we're big enough to negotiate the deals we
want so we don't particularly care if the ladder gets pulled up
behind us". I imagine many other big corporations/sites are in
similar positions. But even so I doubt they'd want to make said
deals in the first place, they'd be expensive. So isn't a
stronger response in their best interest?Or perhaps they're all
secretly looking forward to fast lanes they can buy...
cracell - 3 hours ago
I think they just don't see the point.I don't think the people
pushing to dismantle net neutrality are stupid. They know that
removing it is bad for innovation and consumers but they'd
rather help the ISPs make more money than help keep America's
economy healthy overall.Probably because they directly receive
benefits from the ISPs.So since we are all being ignored, why
will yelling louder make a difference?
scottLobster - 3 hours ago
It worked against SOPA/PIPA, although granted that was
legislation up for a vote, not the policy of a commission.
At the very least it might give some of the politicians a
moment of pause to know they're seriously pissing off other
powerful moneyed interests, and it would certainly increase
public awareness and perhaps make more people care. If you
talk about how YouTube might be throttled without Net
Neutrality, people will definitely care.
[deleted]
boona - 3 hours ago
Don't you find it weird that businesses have to fake that it's an
issue by adding gimmicks to their sites like the slow loading
gif? Maybe if it become an actual instantiated issue in the
future we could expect a real grassroots movement, but as is, the
arguments are mostly academic and it's hard to rally people
around that.
satsuma - 4 hours ago
I would like to see sites with severely limited usage as well but
I imagine that would result in angry customers who don't give a
rip one way or the other hurting the bottom line.
cderwin - 50 minutes ago
This is correct. I am not a fan of net neutrality and the
level of "protest" that has appeared today already makes me
uneasy. It's easy to claim that google is so monolithic that
blocking its services for a day would be a crippling blow to
the anti-net neutrality crowd, but it's really just blackmail.
I don't think the public would be responsive to such a threat,
and there are plenty of alternatives (even if the quality isn't
quite the same). I'm sure one of those alternatives would be
content to not force its politics on its customers.
stordoff - 23 minutes ago
I didn't even realise it was today until part way through reading
this page of comments.Hacker News -> Noticed the black/grey bar,
but assumed it was a variant of the "someone notable has died"
black bar so didn't pay it much attention.Reddit -> Didn't even
see the altered logo until probably the tenth page I was on, and
just though "Oh, the logo didn't load in all the way, weird" (by
the time it gets to the "Bandwidth exceeded" message it's
probably off the page, and even that's hardly a call to (user)
action).Google/Twitter/Facebook -> Didn't notice anything.
jansho - 3 hours ago
Well it's certainly made me pause when I saw HN's fancy grey
header.That's perhaps the intention. Raise awareness first, then
come together to do something. It's gonna take lots of days of
action over the years to gain momentum..
BinaryIdiot - 3 hours ago
This is exactly what I thought.Went to reddit.com...where's the
Net Neutrality protest? Oh I just realized they made their logo a
gif that looks like it loads slow...and they made a post...Went
to google.com...the doodle is unrelated and I saw nothing about
net neutrality on the site...Went to mozilla.org and I see
absolutely nothing about it. I feel like I must be missing
something here.Hackernews...looks the same but slightly grayed.
Oh the black bar is a link, didn't realize that. But no messages
or anything obvious.LinkedIn.com maybe? NothingTwitter? They have
a hashtag that's trending...that's it.Facebook? I see nothing.
Not even a trending topic.This is a very luke warm day of
technology companies protesting net neutrality. I expected at
least a tiny blurb on a homepage SOMEWHERE. So far Netflix and
DuckDuckGo are the only large sites that I've notice actually put
something on their homepage.
[deleted]
chiefofgxbxl - 2 hours ago
Agreed, this is a very poor showing of support from major
websites.I remember Wikipedia doing a "black out" day, along
with several other websites years back. If you visited the web
page, all you saw was a black page and a quick explanation that
the web could be censored if legislation were to pass.I've
visited several participants' sites to see nothing. GitHub
didn't have a single thing, Wikipedia: nothing, and Google (or
Alphabet) isn't even listed on the list of participants [0].[0]
https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants
marksomnian - 1 hours ago
The Wikipedia community seems to have a strong dislike
[0][1][2] for anything like the SOPA blackout, partially as
it's not as black-and-white as SOPA, and partially because
Wikipedia directly wouldn't be affected (their site is pretty
fast).Worth noting that Wikipedia Zero [3] exists, and has
been taking flak for not being the most NN-friendly
initiative.[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_
Wales/Archive_...[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:
Village_pump_(propos...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
pedia:Village_pump_(propos...[3]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2014/11/25...
spookyuser - 2 hours ago
I think archive.org has the best Net Neutrality protest. Very
_in your face_ and clear
adjkant - 2 hours ago
Pornhub is doing more for this than many companies listed here
if you check their homepage (still very minimal), which says a
lot to me...
mrkrabo - 2 hours ago
Why do you want to ruin the internet more for the rest of the
world today?
LeifCarrotson - 2 hours ago
Because I want to protect it for the whole world for the
future. Netflix, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Wikipedia,
Twitter, Reddit, and other major services you use which are
supporting net neutrality all started as American companies.
If this measure fails, it's less likely that equally good
companies will come from the resulting situation.Sorry about
your Internet today, but they're doing it for your Internet
tomorrow.
[deleted]
vacri - 1 hours ago
Reddit didn't even change their banner announcement - it's
currently promoting signing up for Reddit Gifts. The slow-
loading logo only has a clue to what it's about in the alt-
text; the link hasn't changed.
lossolo - 4 hours ago
Google has global network with their caches everywhere. If you
want private peering with google you can have it for free, they
will not pay for peering with you. I know an example in one of Eu
countries in which big ISP wanted google to pay them for private
peering, this ISP had around 40% of internet market in this
country. Google said no and this isp is peering with google for
free now, while charging other companies double digit euro for
megabit..Google has so much private peering around the world that
they just don't really care, it will not affect them too much.
People will change their ISP to have fast youtube access rather
than stop to use youtube or google.
merb - 4 hours ago
> this ISP had around 40% of internet market in this countryoh
I tought it is way more than 40%. well the problem is the other
providers are not (that) better options either.
MrZongle2 - 4 hours ago
Clearly, this day of action needs more hashtags. Maybe a
building to be lit up in different colors tonight. /sSeriously,
I'm disgusted by what counts as "action" these days. This reeks
of lip service, nothing more.
colept - 4 hours ago
I was hoping Amazon would do something creative like offering
Prime Six-Day Shipping but nope - just some graphic tossed aside
so they can keep selling Fire devices.
forgotmysn - 1 hours ago
If anyone would like to ask more direct questions about Net
Neutrality, the ACLU is having an AMA on reddit right now
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/6mvhn3/we_are_the_acl...
[deleted]
[deleted]
cyphar - 3 hours ago
I know this is "old news" now, but it's very fascinating that
Google is suddenly so concerned about "the open internet" 4 days
after EME was ratified (a proposal that they authored and forced
other browsers into supporting thanks to their enormous browser
share).It feels like Google (and other companies for that matter)
are only concerned about "the open internet" when it benefits their
bottom line. In fact, I'm not convinced that Google _does_ care.
For SOPA and PIPA they actually did a (lukewarm) blackout of their
site for the day of action. Wikipedia shut down on that day. Where
has all of the enthusiasm gone?
markdoubleyou - 2 hours ago
Yeah, wow, Google has written an email to a powerless online
community. Bravo, that'll show Ajit!I remember the mass freakout
when Wikipedia shut down--journalists and congressional staffers
suddenly couldn't do their jobs and suddenly it was front page
news, not just a John Oliver rant.
openloop - 4 hours ago
I am starting a small business. One of the decisions I must
account for is network performance versus price. Perhaps I choose
to partner with a company that my network deprioritizes. I am
already at a disadvantage because I cannot afford to run my own
lines cross state like large corporations.These same corporations
can invest or purchase smaller new buisness and enhance their
portfolio. Some already support network neutrality as they
understand this.I know my buisness depends upon my own effort. But
I am sure many other small buisness owners face the same
difficulty.I know it is hard to be fair and objective in allowing
access to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
thinkingemote - 1 hours ago
Forgive me as a European but are there companies who oppose net
neutrality? As in are there HN readers who work for them? If so,
who are they and what are their reasons? Is the issue like same
sex marriage where the only opposition is so laughably out of date
or are there nuances?
bubblethink - 21 minutes ago
One reason is that a lot of these tech companies make a bulk of
their money from selling content, which is in large part
dependent on production houses that are run by cable companies
anyway. So on the one hand Netflix will make a show of supporting
net neutrality, but will discriminate among different internet
users (vpn users), by denying them access.
pducks32 - 1 hours ago
Off topic: this is a very nice site. It?s clean, easy to read
(iPhone and iPad), and I think it makes good use of Google's design
language.
rtx - 4 hours ago
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: Why He's Rejecting Net Neutrality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28
minusSeven - 2 hours ago
I went through the video and I can barely understand less than
10% of what he is talking about. Can anyone eli5 this ?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
jerf - 4 hours ago
I'd like to point out that even if you disagree with this video
that hearing it straight from the source is valuable. If you want
to convince Ajit Pai that he's wrong, knowing what his current
(public) opinion truly is (rather than just someone's strawman)
makes it way easier.
djsumdog - 3 hours ago
Well, if he really believes it. I high doubt most people in
these positions believe a fraction of what they say. They're
being backed by major telecom firms to promote a narrative.
mr_spothawk - 13 minutes ago
The video does not support the narrative that Ajit doesn't
know/believe what he's talking about.
ajmurmann - 3 hours ago
He lost me at the point where he claimed that there no major
issues in 2015. Is he unaware of the throttling that ISPs were
doing for certain types of traffic like Netflix?
omgitstom - 3 hours ago
I love how Ajit keeps saying 'it does not happen' where traffic
is limited or blocked. It was limited, we saw this by Comcast
with Netflix back in 2014.This is what we are getting ready to
get back into. I do not want to have an internet where the ISP
can hold me (the consumer) hostage to other companies to increase
the ISPs bottom line. It isn't a good experience for the
consumer, it isn't a good experience for providers of media and
apps.
bluetwo - 2 hours ago
Verizon FIOS and Netflix at the same time, too.
cheald - 3 hours ago
> It was limited, we saw this by Comcast with Netflix back in
2014.This was due to a peering dispute with Cogent over link
saturation and maintenance costs, not Comcast throttling
Netflix traffic. Netflix ended up peering directly with Comcast
in order to bypass Cogent's bottlenecked links. Neutrality
regulations have jack-all to do with peering mutual maintenance
agreements.
nickysielicki - 2 hours ago
> Neutrality regulations have jack-all to do with peering
mutual maintenance agreements.Can you please write more about
this, or provide some links where I can learn more? I don't
feel I have an understanding of how peering would change
under proposed net neutrality rules.Particularly, I am
curious about the claim that "[Comcast was not throttling
Netflix traffic]". Under the proposed FCC rules, would it be
claimed that they were throttling in that 2014 situation? My
understanding is that they would be seen as throttling, and I
see that as a problematic outcome because Comcast loses
significant bargaining power and essentially is forced to eat
losses whenever a link becomes saturated... I think I read
that the FCC would step in and mediate such talks, which is
even crazier.
cheald - 1 hours ago
> I don't feel I have an understanding of how peering would
change under proposed net neutrality rules.tl;dr: I don't
think the neutrality end of the rules would change peering
at all, and peering disputes are never grounded in the
kinds of things that neutrality seeks to protect. Title II
classification permits the FCC to arbitrate peering
disputes, which is a desirable side effect for people who
just want to watch Netflix without buffering, but doesn't
make it a neutrality issue.Longer version:Netflix reached
Comcast customers through a third-party transit provider
named Cogent. Cogent and Comcast have their networks
connected together, and Netflix's volume of traffic was
such that the links from Cogent -> Comcast became
saturated, resulting in congestion and traffic issues for
Comcast customers trying to get their packets from Netflix
to their Comcast line. Non-Netflix traffic on this same
link degraded, as well - but Netflix was the lion's share
of the traffic, and online video tends to be more visibly
sensitive to congestion issues than most other forms of
traffic, so Netflix became the poster child for the
problem.Cogent and Comcast had a settlement-free peering
agreement, broadly meaning that they agreed to exchange
traffic with one another without charging for it, and with
each side reasonably contributing to maintaining its end of
the link. I'm remembering the details vaguely, but IIRC,
Comcast claimed that the agreement's settlement-free status
depended on maintenance of a roughly equal exchange ratio -
traffic in from Cogent to Comcast should be appropriately
balanced with traffic out from Comcast over Cogent. Netflix
in particular skewed the ratio hard such that traffic in
massively outweighed traffic out.Historically, settlement-
free peering agreements included provisions (or at least an
understanding) that each party would built out their half
of link capacity necessary to handle the exchanged traffic.
As demand goes up, each party is responsible for
contributing to the link's overall capacity. Comcast's
claim was that Cogent's traffic ratios were so out of whack
that Cogent should pay for the link upgrade. Cogent refused
to pay for the link upgrade, citing the settlement-free
nature of the peering relationship. Since nothing got
upgraded, the link remained saturated in the face of
increasing demand, until Netflix got tired of Comcast and
Cogent slap-fighting and peered directly with Comcast, so
they could deliver their bits directly to Comcast's
customers without having to go through a transit provider
(they had previously had similar issues with Level3,
another transit provider). As I understand it, Cogent has a
reputation for abusing traffic balances to offer cut-rate
transit - they have a long and storied history of fierce
peering disputes with a large number of peers, which makes
me somewhat sympathetic to Comcast's position in this case
(ick!)So, as I understand it, Comcast was "throttling
Netflix traffic" in the same way that a straw throttles
nitrogen flow when you blow air through it - that is,
traffic (air) was congested and limited, but it wasn't
limited because it was Netflix (nitrogen) traffic, it was
limited because the link was saturated (the straw was full
of air), and it didn't really matter if it was Netflix or
email or porn or what - if it went over that link, it was
subject to routing issues. It's my non-expert, non-legal
opinion that Comcast wouldn't be in violation because the
Open Internet Order applies to a company's management of
its own network, not of the interconnection points between
networks, and because link saturation is not "impair[ment]
or degrad[ation of] lawful Internet traffic on the basis of
content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices".
As long as all packets are congested equally, it's still
being treated neutrally!It's my opinion that Comcast
absolutely was using Netflix's traffic as a bargaining chip
to try to force Cogent into paying for the upgrade. Whether
that was justified or not is a lot more nuanced than "omg,
Comcast is blocking my Netflix, they must be evil!",
though. As pertains to the regulations, Title II
classification does grant the FCC the authority to step
into peering disputes and take action if it deems a
company's actions in a peering dispute to not be "just and
reasonable", and would have allowed the FCC to step in and
slap one party into compliance, thereby fixing the issue.
That isn't a neutrality issue, though, and I'm not all that
sure that Comcast would have been the losing party in an
FCC mediation of the dispute.
monocasa - 10 minutes ago
> Comcast claimed that the agreement's settlement-free
status depended on maintenance of a roughly equal
exchange ratio - traffic in from Cogent to Comcast should
be appropriately balanced with traffic out from Comcast
over Cogent.Eh, Comcast was being extremely disingenuous,
trying to act like a Tier 1 ISP.For Tier 1s like Cogent,
they expect to more or less equally peer. Ie. BGP routes
and the physical routers themselves should be setup so
that a main, backbone style ISP would receive about as
many bytes on an individual connection as they transmit.
This makes sense for backbone ISPs, or else they end up
in the situation where an ISP is essentially using
another ISP's infrastructure to route their own
customer's traffic in an unfair way.Comcast was trying to
make the argument that Netflix was unduly routing traffic
unto Comcast's network... but all of that traffic were
packets that had been specifically requested by Comcast
customers. It's not Cogent's fault that Comcast's
customers have asymmetric traffic patterns.
cheald - 4 minutes ago
I do agree that Comcast was stretching the argument, but
I'm pretty convinced that it was to try to gain business
leverage against Cogent, rather than to try to justify
jacking up prices for their customers who watched
Netflix. I'm not arguing that Comcast's actions were
particularly noble or righteous, but rather, that they
were fighting with Cogent, not with Netflix.> Comcast was
trying to make the argument that Netflix was unduly
routing traffic unto Comcast's network... but all of that
traffic were packets that had been specifically requested
by Comcast customers. It's not Cogent's fault that
Comcast's customers have asymmetric traffic
patterns.Comcast was arguing that Cogent was unduly
routing traffic onto Comcast's network (the majority of
which happened to be Netflix traffic). You're certainly
right that it's not Cogent's fault that Comcast's
customers have asymmetric traffic patterns, but it is
Cogent's fault that they've been historically abusive to
their peers on the pretext of the traditional agreements
built around symmetric exchange. I think that Comcast
just got fed up with Cogent throwing its weight around
and saw an opportunity in Netflix's huge amounts of
traffic to force Cogent into terms more favorable to
Comcast.(It's pretty clear that Comcast won that round,
IMO - but the loser was Cogent, not Netflix.)
magila - 7 minutes ago
The idea that settlement-free peering always assumes
symmetric flows is a common myth. Nobody expects peering
with a residential ISP to have symmetric traffic because
that doesn't make sense, of course the flows are going to
be overwhelmingly towards the residential side of the
link.Back in 2014 when all this was going on Level 3
published an unusually scathing series of blog posts
where they called out residential ISPs for deliberately
allowing their exchange links to saturate in order to
extort extra payments from Level 3 and their customers.ht
tp://web.archive.org/web/20140512082831/http://blog.level
3... http://web.archive.org/web/20140512082813/http://blo
g.level3... http://web.archive.org/web/20150508143932/htt
p://blog.level3... http://web.archive.org/web/20150313121
250/http://blog.level3... http://web.archive.org/web/2015
0320123512/http://blog.level3...
HugoDaniel - 4 hours ago
So the FCC chairman does not know the difference between a
circuit switching network (telephone) and a packet switching
network (internet). He then insists in using it as the base
example for his argumentation against net neutrality...
aidenn0 - 4 hours ago
Much of the telephone network is also packet switched these
days anyways.
HugoDaniel - 3 hours ago
Precisely. These "things" don't come out of the air. They
have a history and there is a reason why they behave like
they do. Trying to argue that the internet should be like the
[insert old behaviour here: cable tv, telephone, etc...] is
ignoring the story as a whole and trying to push the argument
for the wrong reasons.Here is a fallacy, but feel free to
look into others:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagonedited: added
explanation
thehardsphere - 2 hours ago
How is the type of switching relevant, exactly?
HugoDaniel - 2 hours ago
Why do you think the telephone had different prices
according to the distance you wanted to phone ? That is
because a dedicated circuit had to be established for
your call to be made (sometimes with multiple protocols
in between). This was crucial and defined the way
operators organized and made their businesses.
Unfortunately these businesses did not evolve as much as
tech did and now you have net neutrality being questioned
by the FCC chairman without a hint that he understands
why do these companies behave like they do.Now, my
turn:why do you use an app to call/talk to your friends
instead of calling their number on your smartphone,
exactly ?
thehardsphere - 2 hours ago
Uh, I don't, and I don't understand why you're asking me
that.
siliconc0w - 3 hours ago
He misrepresents the other side's arguments and makes inaccurate
claims himself. There has been many examples of telecoms
blocking competitors or pushing consumers to use their own (often
mediocre) products over competitors.There likely is room for some
reasonable middle-ground that allows for some 'non-neutral'
activity to truly benefit consumers but people don't trust that
our political system can find it. It's much more likely that
unfettered telecoms will further exploit their monopolies to
collect data, segment the market (eliminate any consumer
surplus), deincentivize competitors, push their mediocre
products, or otherwise find ways of increasing revenue beyond
being a 'dump-pipe' because they've exhausted the margin in that.
They is is almost expected behavior from a commercial entity,
it's the government's job to keep them in check.
openloop - 4 hours ago
I am starting a small business. One of the decisions I must
account for is network performance versus price. Perhaps I choose
to partner with a company that my network deprioritizes. I am
already at a disadvantage because I cannot afford to run my own
lines or peer like large corporations.These same corporations can
invest or purchase smaller new buisness and enhance their
portfolio. Some already support network neutrality as they
understand this.I know my buisness depends upon my own effort. But
I am sure many other small buisness owners face the same
difficulty.I know it is hard to be fair and objective in allowing
access to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Thanks for the
article.
chroem- - 2 hours ago
It's disingenuous for big business to try to frame this as a
grassroots movement for freedom on the internet when they were
completely silent about illegal NSA spying. The only difference
between NSA spying and losing net neutrality is that without net
neutrality their profits might be threatened.
thinkingemote - 1 hours ago
As a fellow non American all I can do is twiddle my thumbs.
Perhaps if they addressed how we allies could assist and help
that would be great, but it does indeed feel like a parochial
dispute which we are not invited to take part but have to hear
the shouts nonetheless
shmerl - 1 hours ago
I didn't see any Net Neutrality related banner at:
https://google.comSo Google didn't do what they could here.
FRex - 2 hours ago
I can't even enter the USA without a visa that is expensive, hard
to get and doesn't guarantee entry but I'm getting all these net
neutrality PSAs today telling me to send letters to FCC and
Congress... I'm supportive of the idea itself but it's a bit funny
and stupid, the Americano-centrism.
executive - 4 hours ago
Help Preserve the Open Internet: Repeal and Replace Google AMP
[deleted]
throwanem - 2 hours ago
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No. 17-108), much is
made of the rapid growth of the Internet under the former "light-
touch" regulatory regime. The notice overlooks that this was also
an environment in which competition among many Internet service
providers could and did flourish.Since then, the provision of
connectivity has consolidated among only a few very large
companies, which among them have strongly oligopolic power to
enforce whatever conditions they please upon their customers, both
residential and commercial.In the late-1990s, early-2000s
environment of healthy competition among Internet service
providers, utility-style regulation of ISPs, such as that here
under consideration of repeal, was not a necessary measure.However,
in the current strongly oligopolic environment, only the regulatory
power of the United States Government can continue to provide and
enforce sufficient oversight to maintain a semblance of free market
behavior.Internet-powered entrepreneurship greatly benefits the US
economy. The small, and occasionally large, businesses thus created
have an outsized economic impact in terms of taxes paid and jobs
created. Absent a true free market, or even the regulatory
semblance of one, for Internet connectivity, these businesses may
well find themselves severely hampered in their ability to earn
revenue, with concomitant negative effect on their ability to
contribute to our economy.As such, I must strongly urge the new
regulatory regime proposed in this filing not be adopted.I thank
you very kindly for your time and your consideration, and trust
that you will decide in that fashion which you regard to best serve
the interests of your constituents and of the nation which you
serve.(Also, the "Battle for the Net" folks would have done well to
hire a UX designer - or perhaps to hire a different one. The lack
of any clear confirmation that one's message has been sent fails to
inspire confidence. Perhaps there's an email confirmation that has
yet to arrive, but...)
heydonovan - 4 hours ago
The marketing for Net Neutrality is very poor. Just asked a few
non-technical friends about it. A few responded with "Do you
believe everything you read on the Internet?". Now if all their
favorite websites were shutdown for a day, that would get everyones
attention.
dmamills - 4 hours ago
This day is a joke.
dmamills - 4 hours ago
I know that HN hates "unproductive comments", but I feel my
comment is as likely as effective of "raising net neutrality
awareness" as the silly grey logo bar topping this website right
now.
dmamills - 3 hours ago
I'm glad this comment sits at the bottom of this post. It's
reflective of how the zeitgeist actually cares about this
issue.The Battle For the Net website mentions a vast range of
online companies who apparently stood in solidarity to take
action on this day.* Github: a blog post displayed on your
feed.* Etsy: Nothing.* Kickstarter: Nothing.* Netflix:
Nothing.* Twitter: Nothing.* Vimeo: A featured video on the
landing page.* Reddit: A tiny blurred logo.* Hacker News: A
grey bar!* Mozilla: Nothing.* OkCupid: Nothing.What a great
display!
mconley - 3 hours ago
> * Mozilla: Nothing.Really not sure what you're talking
about here.Along with this blog post:
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/07/11/defending-net-
neutr...There's a snippet on about:home about Net Neutrality
for every Firefox user:https://ffp4g1ylyit3jdyti1hqcvtb-
wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...We've got a form here to make
it easy to submit your comments to the FCC:
https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality-commentsWe
even voiced 9hrs worth of Net Neutrality comments that had
already been submitted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_co
ntinue=1&v=twksX_S3vkgThe most recent episode of the IRL
Podcast is centered completely around Net Neutrality:
https://irlpodcast.org/episode2/
dmamills - 3 hours ago
Sorry I wasn't able to discover that podcast, youtube
video, blogpost and form. Thanks for your efforts.
djsumdog - 3 hours ago
Reddit did have a pop-up with a slow moving GIF.
chrstphrwrght - 50 minutes ago
Kickstarter has a full screen homepage takeover for users
based in the US. If you're not seeing anything, it could be
down to issues determining location.https://twitter.com/fight
fortheftr/status/885140707866017798
rnhmjoj - 3 hours ago
Google trying to preserve the Open Internet... yeah right.
EdSharkey - 3 hours ago
I don't understand the logic of ISP's throttling certain sites
based on the traffic to those sites.As a consumer on ISP's last
mile lines, I make a series of TCP requests and I expect responses.
Fill my pipes with those responses as best you can and charge me
for the privilege. If you're not making enough money on that,
charge me more for the bandwidth.Market-wise, why would an ISP
anything else than fill my pipe with what I'm asking for?An ISP
should make all the money it needs to make off my service
subscription. It's not too far of a leap for me to imagine U.S.
laws being changed that restrict ISP's to only being able to charge
the end-user for their subscriptions with heavily regulated flat
fees for peering arrangements and co-location services placed near
the consumer.The obvious shenanagans that are ramping up here will
eventually lead to a massive consumer backlash and a regulatory
hammer coming down. People are not going to forget what the open
internet looked like.
logicalmind - 2 hours ago
The problem is that the ISP resources are shared resources. Some
day we might all have 1Gbps+ fiber to our houses but today this
doesn't exist. Many parts of the network you use to access the
internet are common to some other set of people. So if you were
to saturate your internet line, your neighbors (or possible more
people) would have seriously deteriorated access. There is no way
around this problem without upgrading the last mile connections
everywhere, which is expensive. You're essentially paying for the
most profitable and acceptable internet the ISP is willing to
provide.Maximum throughput and quality of service are not their
goals. They want as many people as possible paying for service on
a line they paid $X to install. And they get this by being able
to throttle their user's traffic in order to allow as many people
to use the same line as possible.What you're saying is basically
the same as the "unlimited" argument in terms of internet access
or even cell phone plans. You don't have a personal internet
connection just for you that you can use in an unlimited way. The
internet line run to your neighborhood is essentially zero sum.
If you take a huge chunk of the bandwidth, then other paying
customers get less. Charging you more doesn't help unless you
fund entirely new network lines and installation. They want
everyone to have an equal size of the pie. You can't have a dozen
households sharing a connection to the internet and all be
streaming netflix in 4k. There simply isn't the infrastructure to
support that right now, in most places. No matter how much you're
willing to pay.
EdSharkey - 5 minutes ago
I can't speak to what ISP's want and I do not know what is
truly going on here. But, from my vantage point I get the
sense there's open warfare going on between these companies.
Everyone is using their pipes on the internet and in
Washington, trying to knock the others off their game. Net
neutrality appears to be one side's weapon in the war. The
fact that net neutrality might work in my favor may just be
accidental.I can speak to what I want. I want to be charged
for service. If the ISP's aren't charging me enough to make
the money they need to make off the service they provide to me,
I want them to charge me more. And, if they get too greedy,
then let a competitor try to come in and charge me a bit less
for similar services.What I'm saying is basically let the
market do its thing. It can't do its thing if we have these
ISP's unfairly using their position to snipe at competing
companies' streams flowing over their pipes. It's not
transparent, and they're going to double-dip anyways - charging
me AND the popular websites for using their pipes.What I'm
saying is basically we can't have the market do its thing when
ISP's are allowed to be more than a dumb pipe and a host for
near caches.
thehardsphere - 3 hours ago
You're correct to ask these questions. The truth is that the
entire motivation behind Net Neutrality is predicated on
hypothetical behavior by an ISP that nobody has ever actually
observed in reality for the exact reasons you describe.
wmf - 1 hours ago
Hypothetical? https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-
neutrality-vio... (and a rebuttal: https://hightechforum.org
/fact-checking-net-neutrality-viola... )
lerpa - 2 hours ago
ISPs have a lot to win with keeping their monopolies as it
is.Given the amount of alarmism it actually seems to me there
is heavy propaganda advocating for the status quo, for some
reason, perhaps they want further regulations that can be done
more easily through net neutrality. Not sure.
thehardsphere - 2 hours ago
Once you establish that the FCC can regulate the internet,
you can do all kinds of very opaque regulation that is
difficult to change (e.g. other guy needs to control White
House and Congress or sue the government and win).Heavier
regulations usually favor established players who can engage
in regulatory capture, to shape the new rules to prevent
future competition from smaller companies and firms that
don't even exist yet. Often times they cloak this motivation
with justifications that sound uncontroversial and difficult
to object to.I don't know specifically what the real goal is
here with Net Neutrality, but that's the sort of thing that
happens in other industries all the time. Often in terms of
"safety" or "helping the environment."
EdSharkey - 17 minutes ago
Your comments boil down to "distrust of government/more
crony capitalism" message for me.I agree, if that is where
your heart is at. U.S. government is very dysfunctional.
Corporations buy up representatives, regulatory agencies
are politicized and made into paper tigers or weapons to
attack enemies with, etc.I don't expect that to change in
the U.S., and in fact I expect deregulation and a non-
neutral net real soon. Then, we'll begin the slow slide
into the nightmare scenario where ISP's can extract more
rents from both websites and users. Extorting fees from
websites for accessing the fast lane to the users will be
the favorite way of simultaneously increasing profits and
wounding competing media companies that don't control their
own last mile fiefdoms.When the quality of service dips too
low and the costs rise too high, I believe the result will
be a populist wave of anger sweeping over these companies.
They will be broken up into smaller companies based on
function, municipal ISP's will get established to handle
the last mile, and there will be harsh regulations put on
what ISP's can legally do with data flowing over their
pipes.My frustration with the net neutrality folks
(probably similar to yours) is their insistence that we
"REGULATE IT" where no specifics are given and is not
really a plan, leaving things open to mischief. The devil
in the details here is establishing what is reasonable and
fair for an ISP to do -- and we then fairness hug the ISP's
to death.
lerpa - 2 hours ago
Net neutrality just helps the status quo, and forces the "evil
greedy ISPs" to take your money. Yeah let's show them by giving
them money and no competition to their business... wait.Vote for
less regulation, not just getting rid of NN but getting rid of the
monopolies that exist at the local level.
J5892 - 1 hours ago
Yeah! Once we remove all regulations, ISPs will be forced to
compete with all the little ISPs eagerly waiting to provide
service!Net Neutrality does nothing to hinder competition. In
fact, we need more regulation to force competition.It's because
of a lack of regulation that my city tricked into selling their
amazing municipal broadband service to Comcast.
AndrewKemendo - 4 hours ago
Thanks in part to net neutrality, the open internet has grown to
become an unrivaled source of choice, competition, innovation, free
expression, and opportunity.Unless my history is wrong, and please
correct me if that is the case, until the Title II decision in
2015, there were no regulations preventing an ISP from
discriminating network traffic. So to say that Net Neutrality has
been key to an open internet from 1980-2015 seems without merit.I
think the argument here is the same for any argument of
nationalization: To turn a private good into a public
one.Businesses, local and federal governments, have all contributed
to the infrastructure that is the internet. So the private company
can't say, "well it was all our investment" and equally the
Government can't say "This is a public good."
dragonwriter - 4 hours ago
Net neutrality regulations were adopted to protect (and in some
degree restore) the net neutrality condition; the internet was
largely neutral from its inception; though by the early 00s
threats to neutrality in practice were becoming clear, and the
FCC began discussion the issue, adopting open internet principles
that it first attempted to promote via case-by-case action (which
was limited by the courts), then Title I regulation (which was
struck down by the courts) in 2010.There's considerable reason to
believe that even without enforceable rules, the attention and
active policy activity directed at enforceable rules inhibited
non-neutral action by ISPs compared to what it would have been
without that activity.> So to say that Net Neutrality has been
key to an open internet from 1980-2015 seems without merit.To say
net neutrality regulations have been would be without merit,
sure. To say net neutrality has been, OTOH, is factually true.
wmf - 1 hours ago
One thing I've wondered is why ISPs turned evil after so many
years of voluntary net neutrality.
5ilv3r - 1 hours ago
They didn't change. They bought eachother and squeezed out
competition out until their influence was more powerful than
the consequences of playing unfairly. A long long time ago,
you could choose between dozens of ISPs. That is no longer
true.
qb45 - 1 hours ago
I think what changed is streaming services - huge and costly
(to the ISP) bandwidth hogs which are just asking to be
extorted because they make money on their content.Maybe it's
also a matter of competition with cable TV - if Comcast
reduces Internet service prices and takes the money from
Netflix instead, Netflix will have to rise their prices and
be less competitive?
AndrewKemendo - 4 hours ago
So if I understand your point here, it's basically that ISPs
had an informal "code of conduct" if you will, that "All
packets are created equal." That this was an informal contract
with the users that everyone tacitly agreed to - what you state
as a condition.Starting in the early 2000s however some groups
started breaking that informal contract and the goal in the
early 2000s was to codify that into law.So "net neutrality" in
this case is trying to make a formal system out of what would
be considered common law.Makes sense holistically. Thanks.
SolarNet - 4 hours ago
There were net neutrality actions before 2015, and net neutrality
has applied ever since they were using phone lines for internet
service (as, for example, those - phones - are where the original
legislation was targeted, and where net neutrality came from).
The 2015 Title II was a specific decision about specific ISPs
(namely mobile data plans).So yes you are wrong.
AndrewKemendo - 4 hours ago
There were net neutrality actions before 2015Actions such as
what? I'm talking specifically about regulations that prevent a
company from throttling traffic in a discriminatory way.
JustSomeNobody - 4 hours ago
Hasn't the spirit of the Internet always been about a neutral
Internet? That spirit was being threatened and so regulations
were put in place to keep it neutral.
AndrewKemendo - 4 hours ago
We have retroactively latched on to this RMS style idea of a
digital library of alexandria that has somehow been
abandoned.It's like nobody remembers the internet of the 90s
and how blatantly over the top siloed it was for the average
AOL style user. I mean I remember my paid dial up internet
service came on a floppy and had it's own browser and pop-up
ads.The "free" services required that you click on header links
every few minutes.
JustSomeNobody - 2 hours ago
The Internet of the 90's I remember was a small, local ISP
that basically gave me creds to a unix system. I had access
to ftp, telnet, usenet, web, email, etc. I knew the people
working there and could drive over and have lunch with them.
They were eager to share how it all worked. As long as you
didn't (regularly) go over your storage quota, you were
good.This is the neutral net that I recall and so wish I
still had.I never once dipped my toes into the AOL muck.
pas - 1 minutes ago
Yet from the network perspective, there was not much
preferential routing based on service providers, because
consolidation is always a late stage thing. (Where content
and connection providers combined.)
5ilv3r - 1 hours ago
AOL was not originally an ISP. That was a service they added
to their other private services around when they adopted the
america online name.
lerpa - 2 hours ago
If there are bad players, why instead don't you get rid of the
legislation that gives them monopolies, so other people can
offer better services?Instead you're just giving the bad apples
your money. Oh how awful for them... and they will put data
caps and raise prices, because as long as the laws gives them
monopolies you can't do nothing about it.
JustSomeNobody - 24 minutes ago
I would love to get rid of the legislation that promotes
monopolies among the ISPs. Please do tell me how? Seems every
politician these days doesn't hold my same opinions.
takeda - 9 minutes ago
> Unless my history is wrong, and please correct me if that is
the case, until the Title II decision in 2015, there were no
regulations preventing an ISP from discriminating network
traffic. So to say that Net Neutrality has been key to an open
internet from 1980-2015 seems without merit.The net neutrality
was not necessary early on because it was not feasible in the
past to control it on such large scale.So between 1980-2015 net
neutrality (did not exist as a law) but was there indirectly in
forms of:- the technology at the time did not allow for deep
packet inspection- net neutrality was indirectly present due to
telecom regulations. For example telecom could not just block
calls as they wished. So during dial-up times anyone could enter
that market and provide service and cost was low. During the time
of DSL there was a regulation that required telecom companies to
lease their lines so again cost to enter and be DSL ISP was
relatively low. There's no such thing with cable companies.>
Businesses, local and federal governments, have all contributed
to the infrastructure that is the internet. So the private
company can't say, "well it was all our investment" and equally
the Government can't say "This is a public good."I think you're
misunderstanding it. This has nothing to do with Internet being a
public good or not. It's all about controlling access to it.What
net neutrality does in a nutshell is preventing the ISPs (which
provide Internet access) from being able to censor at their whim
what you can access.In normal scenario, free market would solve
this issue. No one would use ISPs that place restrictions on
their service and would move the competitors.The problem is that
we don't have a normal scenario, we have regional monopolies, and
if you don't like your ISP, tough luck.It's also nearly
impossible to enter this market anymore, for example Google was
attempting to deploy Google Fiber, but even they failed.We need
net neutrality now more than ever, because a single company
essentially now will be able to control what content you can
access. It would be a smaller issue if each region had its own
separate company, but in reality the only companies that benefit
on this you probably can count on your one hand.
rflrob - 4 hours ago
Even though there were no explicit rules requiring something,
there were nevertheless unofficial norms that were followed. If
(almost) everyone does something without a rule, then making a
rule is pointless. But when you get enough people skirting those
norms, it then becomes necessary to codify them. For instance,
the Special Prosecutor law that Ken Starr operated under was put
in place in the wake of Watergate and the Saturday Night
Massacre, when it became clear that the understanding that a
special prosecutor should be protected from firing upon executive
whim.
AndrewKemendo - 4 hours ago
But when you get enough people skirting those norms, it then
becomes necessary to codify them.Is that what was happening,
because if so it was never made clear to me. The first I
remember this coming up was with the internet "lanes." AFAIK,
again tell me where I'm wrong here please, there was nothing
preventing an ISP from creating a "fast lane" before 2015.
thehardsphere - 2 hours ago
Hasn't actually happened, no. The closest thing was some deal
between YouTube and MetroPCS, though competing streaming
services didn't have the technology required implemented and
MetroPCS said they would add other sercices once that
happened.I'm very shaky on the details there, so don't take
my word for it.
mnm1 - 4 hours ago
Sorry Google (and FB, Amazon, etc.) this doesn't actually count as
taking action. Not even a single link on their home page. An
obscure post on a blog won't do shit. Let's stop pretending that
you want net neutrality, Google, et al. Day of action my fucking
ass.
clarkevans - 3 hours ago
Indeed. With prior threats I seem to remember Google having some
sort of front-page search page link to the issue. Perhaps I'm
not remembering correctly? Why no Google search page love?I was
at least expecting what is currently at https://duckduckgo.com/
Old_Thrashbarg - 3 hours ago
Right, shame on Google. Even DuckDuckGo's action is extremely
mild, but better than nothing at all.
[deleted]
krath94 - 3 hours ago
Google is pissed because the Internet is now under Title II
making it nearly impossible for them to lay their fiber along
public roads anymore. You know how to really fuck over Comcast?
Allow google to bring Fiber to every major city. But they can't
because regulation.
bratsche - 3 hours ago
Then maybe they, or Chairman Pai or someone, can talk about how
to protect net neutrality in some way other than Title II.Title
II was instituted basically as a last resort. And nobody has
been coming forward saying, "Okay.. we have a plan here to undo
the Title II but still preserve net neutrality."
scottLobster - 3 hours ago
To be fair, the previous FCC tried that. The courts struck
it down and told them if they wanted to regulated ISPs in
that manner they had to go Title II.Non-Title II regulation
of ISPs would require an act of Congress, a Republican-held
congress with a Republican President. Good luck with that.
:P
BinaryIdiot - 3 hours ago
Citation? I've seen a lot of rumored reasons for why Google is
slowing / stopping their fiber rollout but I've never heard
this one. What part of Title II makes it difficult for them?
guelo - 3 hours ago
That's bullshit. Title II has little to do with Google Fiber's
plans or why it's so expensive to lay fiber. Google Fiber has
continued expanding after the Title II classification, though
their focus has shifted to wireless technologies.
[deleted]
choward - 3 hours ago
I agree.> Tell everyone that you want to keep the Internet free
and open.Why should I if you're not even going to mention it on
your home page? They could even make it the doodle. Or not load a
doodle and say it's due to bandwidth concerns because of lack of
net neutrality. They just put some random blog up that nobody is
going to see. Nice work!
333c - 3 hours ago
Seriously! I went to Google's homepage to check how they did
their Doodle for net neutrality, only to discover a Doodle
entirely unrelated to the topic. I'm on a slow-ish connection, so
each panel took a little while to load, and I thought that the
load times were a feature of the Doodle at first. Nope. They have
no mention of it today.
[deleted]
likelynew - 3 hours ago
Yeah. Unless the CEO of the companies does not come out naked in
the street shouting pro net neutrality comments, it does not
count.
robxu9 - 3 hours ago
Amazon does have a Net Neutrality link on their front page - on
the right sidebar for me at least.That being said, it all just
kind of feels underwhelming.
rf15 - 4 hours ago
Can I contribute without being an US citizen? It seems to be an US-
internal issue, but considering that most of the net belongs to the
US, this might actually be a far more global question than is
legally coverable/definable by US law.
JoshTriplett - 4 hours ago
Now if only this were linked from the bottom of google.com .
dessant - 4 hours ago
Or better yet, from their logo. Like they did for the SOPA and
PIPA Internet blackout: https://www.google.com/doodles/sopa-pipa.
vdnkh - 4 hours ago
Yeah, it would also give weight to an otherwise lukewarm article.
It's way to bogged down in Standard Business English to make a
coherent thrust.
tyrrvk - 2 hours ago
I see a lot of shills posting their anti-Network Neutrality stuff
here, so I wanted to chime in reminding folks of a few things:
Telco's were forced at one point to share phone lines. Remember all
those DSL startups? Remember speakeasy? This was called local
loop unbundling. What did the Telco's do? everything possible to
break or interfere with these startup service provides. The
telco's felt that it was "their lines". Customers were angry and
eventually local loop unbundling was dismantled. Ironically -
France, South Korea and other nations copied this idea for their
high speed network providers - and it actually worked! You can get
high speed internet in these countries from a variety of providers.
Competition! If the FTC/FCC wasn't completely under regulatory
capture, and telcos like AT&T were punished for this behaviour and
competitors were allowed to provide services over last mile
connections then yes, we might not need something like Network
Neutrality. Instead we have entrenched ISP monopolies and no
competition. So we need consumer protections like TitleII and
Network Neutrality. We also need community owned fiber networks
springing up everywhere, which then over time could lessen the need
for regulation as market forces would prevail. However, entrenched
monopolies like Comcast and AT&T have to be shackled. It's the
only way.
cookiecaper - 1 hours ago
Your post is good and I upvoted, but I had to fight the instinct
to downvote when you automatically assume those with the opposite
POV are "shills", implying they are not sincere contributors. We
need more people who are entertaining a moderated dialogue that
acknowledge the value of the principles on both sides of the
aisle, as your post does: a role for commerce and a role for
reasonable regulation. However, calling the other sides "shills"
in the first sentence makes many who may benefit immediately
dismiss the comment.I would suggest the best way to fix ISP
competition is to make wireless ISPs faster/cheaper/better/more
reliable. This obviates the "last mile" problem that makes
competition in landline businesses so untenable.
abtinf - 1 hours ago
This is a complex issue with many possible approaches. Calling
those who disagree with you "shills" is intellectually dishonest
and wrong.
shmerl - 1 hours ago
Those who support monopolies can only be shills. There are no
"approaches" here. Other option can be someone severely
misinformed, which also can't be called an approach.
toomanybeersies - 1 hours ago
New Zealand too. The state of broadband was abysmal, since
Telecom had a monopoly on the lines, so you'd pay a small
fortune, and get a tiny (like 5 GB, small even for 2007) data
cap. After the unbundling, we had a bunch of competition pop up
and drive the prices down, and data caps up (these days, data
caps are very uncommon, the opposite direction the USA is
going).These days, we've gone one step further, and the majority
of lines are owned by wholesalers, who don't deal directly with
the consumer.
dang - 1 hours ago
Accusations of astroturfing and shillage aren't allowed here
unless you have evidence, and someone else having a different
opinion doesn't count as evidence. Please don't post like this to
HN.For those who want to read further about HN's approach to
this, there's another thread from today at
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14753932 and links to much
more from there.
briandear - 1 hours ago
France isn?t as nice as you picture it. In rural and semi-rural
France, Orange still has the monopoly and the service is as
atrocious as one would expect. With less regulation out here
there could actually be more competition. The ?competition? still
consists or pretty much 3 companies. Trying to start your own ISP
out here requires moving a mountain; it?s close to impossible.
It?s a cabal.Not arguing that it?s worse than the US, but I did
have FIOS I?m Jersey City several years ago that was faster then
than the so called ?high speed? fiber is in French cities now. On
paper, really fast connections exist, but they are based on
geographic luck rather than the result of good policy.What really
needs to happen is that internet providers should be decoupled
from TV providers. It might just be my tin foil hat not working
but it feels like Netflix and iTunes gets throttled or has very
temperamental connections, but watching some high def content
from Orange just flies. Same exact wires. Orange has a huge
incentive to prioritize their services. Yet supposedly, net
neutrality is in France? I bet there is some fine print that
allows Oranage to prioritize their content.I am ranting because I
have a business internet plan that has a full 0.75 Mbs upload
speed and I pay more than did in Jersey City where I have a 200
Mbs upload speed ? with worse service and a disasterous excuse
for customer service.Being ?more like France? is rarely a good
idea when it comes to technology. Hopefully, Macron will change
that.
throwawaycuz - 4 hours ago
Serious question, could someone please educate me.1) How is Net
Neutrality different from a slippery slope to communism?2) During
the President Obama years, my ISP in the U.S. offered 3 different
tiers of service at 3 different prices. How is that pure "net
neutrality"? (this was similar to the situation where in the U.S.,
rich lefty-liberals don't send their kids to public schools... but
want poor conservatives to send their kids to public schools, rich
lefty-liberals don't want public housing built in their
neighborhoods... etc. etc... but still want to virtue signal that
they're in favor of public education and public housing)
anigbrowl - 4 hours ago
You say that like it's a bad thing :)
rm_-rf_slash - 4 hours ago
1: Anything can be considered a slippery slope to communism,
fascism, etc2: Your straw man argument relies on a very small
subset of the US population and distracts from the issue of net
neutrality.
idlewords - 4 hours ago
1) Communism is a belief in the overthrow of existing power
relationships through violent revolution, in which the working
class seizes the means of production. Net neutrality is a
regulatory proposal within an established republican system of
government.2) The 'neutrality' in net neutrality refers to not
privileging traffic based on its origin. It has nothing to do
with things like different connection speeds.
crush-n-spread - 4 hours ago
1) Net neutrality concerns whether or not it is legal for an ISP
to provide more bandwidth and faster service to some websites
while providing less bandwidth and speed to other websites. Net
neutrality is about who gets fast service and who gets slow
service, with fast service being something that can be bought.
Communism has to do with ownership of the means of production.
ISPs will still be owning access to the internet, so it's not
communism.2. Your ISP offering three different tiers of internet
is like being able to buy three different priced cars. That is
perfectly OK and has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. However,
if you had to pay $3/mile to drive in one highway lane that had
no speed limit, that would be like net neutrality.It seems like
you're polarized over left/right politics and don't really
understand net neutrality at all.
[deleted]
scotu - 4 hours ago
serious question: how is net neutrality a slippery slope to
communism? If I was so scared by the commies I would be more
concerned about how every capitalist company is now trying to
sell you services instead of goods
kuldeep_kap - 4 hours ago
Net neutrality is about getting exactly what you pay for. For
example if you pay for 100MBps connection you should get 100Mbps
regardless of any site you access. You don't want your ISP to
decide that Netflix would stream on 20Mbps and Comcast would
stream at 100Mbps. This gives us unfair advantages to certain
sites which is beyond your control. Worse yet ISP can police
which sites you can visit which not with absence of Net
Neutrality. So this has nothing to do with communism or also not
to be confused with the "right to free internet". Those are all
independent topics.
drdaeman - 3 hours ago
> if you pay for 100MBps connection you should get 100Mbps
regardless of any site you accessI'm sorry, but the Internets
just don't work that way.The only way to get guaranteed 100Mbps
when crossing a few AS borders', is to have bandwidth SLAs all
the way. Which is - as far as I understand it (could be
mistaken) - about the opposite of what Net Neutrality
proponents seem to stand for.ISPs can guarantee (or, at least,
try to provide) you a certain quality of service within their
network, as they have full control over it. They can also try
poke their direct peers (whom they have agreements with) to do
something if the problem is at some neighboring AS. They can
also try to politely ask other systems (hoping they would care
to help). But that's about it.
kuldeep_kap - 2 hours ago
Thats what I am referring to - the certain quality of service
and especially no throttling part of it. Of course
technically no one can guarantee certain speed, but they can
try to hinder it intentionally.
jacksnipe - 4 hours ago
1) I suppose you could consider this "towards communism" in the
sense that it takes power from individuals and gives it to "the
people" (i.e., the government). However, it seems no different
than utility regulation to me, and the slope certainly doesn't
seem slippery (a slippery slope argument only works if each
successive step begets the next one).2) In the situation you laid
out, the speed you're paying for is the same speed no matter who
you are connecting to. Without net neutrality, you will get
different speeds depending on who is on the other end of your
connection.
jeena - 3 hours ago
Comunism is about giving power to the people but it is not
about giving power to the government, in fact in Comunism there
is no state anymore, at least that's how Marx and Engels
envisioned it.
[deleted]
scottLobster - 4 hours ago
1. At present ISPs have monopoly or near monopoly status over the
vast majority of the US and are destroying competition in the
marketplace through anti-competitive means. To protect the free
market they must either be broken up or strongly regulated.I'd
like to point out that "strongly regulated" in this case is still
far less regulation than current water or power utilities enjoy.
Do you consider those regulations, that have been around for
decades, a "slippery slope into communism?" Is the government
telling your electric utility that they can't charge you
differently for using your refrigerator vs using your lights
"communist"?2. It isn't net neutrality at all, or even related.
Net neutrality is the principle that packets are not prioritized.
If I want to watch Netflix instead of Comcast's video service, I
should be able to utilize my full bandwidth to do so.
2bitencryption - 4 hours ago
1) what?2) >During the President Obama years, my ISP in the U.S.
offered 3 different tiers of service at 3 different prices. How
is that pure "net neutrality"?Well, for one, Title II wasn't
enforced during the "President Obama years" that I know of, so
there is no difference in what you could have experienced than as
what you could experience now. And second, offering different
speed tiers has nothing to do with net neutrality, as long as
that speed applied neutrally to all content you can access over
the internet.
djsumdog - 3 hours ago
Exactly. Speed != Quality of Service.
dang - 4 hours ago
We've banned this account for starting ideological flamewars. If
you keep doing this it will eventually get your main account
banned as well.
mod - 3 hours ago
Out of curiosity, what would banning the main account do?I
guess I understand if the threat of losing it is the impetus to
behave well.I have to imagine it would just drive the user to
create more throwaways, though.
throwanem - 1 hours ago
Only those of us with the 'showdead' profile setting enabled
will see them, though.
Anarchonaut - 2 hours ago
Net neutrality (government's involvement in the Internet) suckshttp
s://www.google.de/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-...
idyllei - 4 hours ago
Net neutrality has been a buzzword for a while now. Large new
companies like to harp on it just for views, and they don't really
explain to viewers just what losing it will mean. FOX News's motto
"We report. You Decide" makes it evident that large networks don't
care about the validity of information, just that it generates the
largest amount of revenue for them. Companies (and individuals)
with money won't care about net neutrality--they can pay their way
around it. But the casual user can't afford that, and they aren't
being educated as to what this means for them. We need to get large
news networks to accurately report the situation and how consumers
can help.
natch - 3 hours ago
Am I going blind, or is Google not listed here amongst the
companies listed as participants behind battleforthenet.com?https:/
/www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participantsWhy, Google?Yes I see
they sponsored
https://netneutrality.internetassociation.org/action/ but why not
get behind both sites?
[deleted]
mabbo - 4 hours ago
If Google were actually serious about Net Neutrality, they would
use their insane market power to protect it.How? Well, a simple
statement saying "any ISP who abuses net neutrality will have their
customers cut off from Google products". No Google search, no
YouTube, no Gmail. Have those requests instead redirect to a
website telling the customer what their ISP is doing, why Google
won't work with them, and how to call to complain to the ISP. Make
the site list competitors in the user's area that don't play stupid
games.Is this an insane idea? Yep. Would Google come under scrutiny
because of their now-obvious market power? Oh definitely. And
Google would probably lose money over it. But it would certainly
work.People don't get internet, and then decide to use Google. They
want Google and then get internet for that purpose.edit: an hour
later, fixing an autocorrect word
lend000 - 2 hours ago
No ISP is abusing net neutrality yet (to my knowledge), so they
haven't had the opportunity. Also, as others have said, that
worsens the problem and makes the Internet less neutral.
mattferderer - 1 hours ago
This explains net neutrality really well.
https://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-
really-...It discusses the use of faster lanes that only
companies with money would have access to. At first this seems
fair that companies should be able to purchase better
technology to improve their speed. The question then becomes
what happens to traffic on the slower lanes? I could argue this
both ways. At the end of the day, the history of most ISP
companies makes me not trust them.Here's an article about
Comcast trying to find loop holes https://www.wired.com/2015/11
/comcast-may-have-found-a-major...
krath94 - 3 hours ago
"Yeah we're gonna teach them that censorship is wrong by
censoring people!!!"
AdamJacobMuller - 3 hours ago
Sadly, irony like that is lost on a lot of people these days.
kingbirdy - 3 hours ago
But they'd just be censoring themselves
reitanqild - 2 hours ago
Yep. That was the point I guess.Sometimes it seems easier to
communicate something by stating the opposite and let people
work out themselves why this is a bad idea.
[deleted]
yellowapple - 1 hours ago
Welcome to Hacker News!
[deleted]
erwinkle - 1 hours ago
Wouldn't ISPs just whitelist google? How would google even check
without causing false positives?
gist - 4 hours ago
> Well, a simple statement saying "any ISP who abuses net
neutrality will have their customers cut off from Google
products". No Google search, no YouTube, no GmailSo you are
suggesting that they harm their own business interests? For how
long exactly?
komali2 - 3 hours ago
I love this idea because I read too much cyberpunk.Why doesn't
Twitter flex its muscle and cause a national crisis by tweeting
"watch out China, nukes are coming" from Donald Trump's Twitter?
That ruins trust in the platform, but what if they just banned
the US president's account for TOS or something? Enormous amount
of power.What if Musk's first ship to Mars had a hidden Railgun
on it? "Anybody else that wants to come to Mars must pay
equivalent US 100,000 million per vehicle." Alternatively, "I now
own mars, who can come as well is up to my whim."What if
Microsoft issued a malicious patch that gave it access to the
NSA's servers? What if Comcast slurped up FBI traffic?In the
internet and space age, corporations are getting enough real
power that government power can be outright stepped over. Sure,
say Comcast slurps data somehow from CIA and FBI, goes to prez,
and says "give us x or we sell this to Russia," the US gov can
turn around and threaten to arrest the CEO, or fine them, or kick
down doors and start tearing apart infrastructure with the US
military, but Comcast could easily say "do any of the above and
the data is given to Russia, for free."Musk has weaponised Mars,
a state actor says "unweaponise it or be hanged," Musk can say
"well, the cannon is automated, has 300 rounds of ammunition, and
will not deactivate unless my secret passcode and the secret
passcode of another person who I will not name, are provided. Per
detected vehicle."Etc.Exciting, fun, terrifying. It can go
fantastic for us (Google and Netflix telling telecoms to suck
it), or absolutely horrifying (Comcast holding the US government
hostage).
zabana - 2 hours ago
> I love this idea because I read too much cyberpunk.Can you
recommend some novels ? (I'm also a cyberpunk nerd) Thanks in
advance
jacquesm - 1 hours ago
The Musk play is straight from Snowcrash where a 'nuclear
sovereign power' (a dude on a motorcycle with a nuclear bomb
in the sidecar passenger seat keyed to his heartbeat still
going strong) runs roughshod over just about everything with
impunity.
komali2 - 1 hours ago
+1 to jacquesm's suggestion, as well as pretty much the
entirety of Neal Stephenson's library of work. Diamond Age
and Anathem in particular.For me there's a lot of crossover
between Cyberpunk/scifi, the only difference being time
period, so I'd throw in the Culture series and the Revelation
Space series.The Stars my Destination (grunge as
fuck)Neuromancer, though I'm sure you've already read it.
lelandbatey - 1 hours ago
A book series that's, at least to me, frighteningly close
to home while also being entertaining and totally
interesting in it's premise is the Nexus trilogy by Ramez
Naam. You could easily read only the first book, but the
trilogy was a good read for me. You can find it on Amazon
here:https://www.amazon.com/Nexus-Arc-Book-1/dp/0857662937
okey - 1 hours ago
Hardwired
adventured - 3 hours ago
> but what if they just banned the US president's account for
TOS or somethingBecause the US Government has terrifying
amounts of power and can be very spiteful.Their ability to
easily intimidate corporations has been demonstrated time and
time again. See: NSA v tech, Qwest, broad anti-trust powers
(which have nothing to do with monopoly and everything to do
with subjective definitions), SEC, FTC, FCC, national security
powers, executive orders, and the list goes for days.
BinaryIdiot - 3 hours ago
I think parent's overall point is that the private sector has
amassed quite a lot of power that could overstep / bypass the
government entirely. It's not outside the realm of
possibility that a team of rogue people in one or more social
companies could literally trigger a war or worse.It wasn't
about one specific, small example but the big picture. Since
these companies care about profit and the people running the
companies likely care about their lives I'd imagine much of
this wouldn't ever happen but it's all technically possible
which, compared to where we were say 20 years ago, is just
absolutely amazing in every sense of the word.
adventured - 3 hours ago
> the private sector has amassed quite a lot of power that
could overstep / bypass the government entirelyI understand
and that's a fantasy at best, which was my point. The US
Government is radically more powerful than any corporation
inside of its domain. It's not even remotely close. They're
more powerful than every corporation in the US combined.The
moment they send federal agents to shut down Google HQ
(even if it's just for a day) and begin arresting people on
terrorism charges (doesn't matter if any of it sticks, they
never have to stop coming), specifically targeting
management, and then walking them through & out of the
buildings in handcuffs - Google instantly capitulates as
their stock collapses by 20% in one day. And that's the
easiest of moves the Feds can make, that's a trivial
demonstration of their power to intimidate.Then the IRS
begins pursuing any exec they want to. They can do horrific
things to anyone at any time, even if it doesn't stick
long-term it still makes your life hell - and they never
have to stop coming.Then x y z, forever, paying their bills
with your tax dollars and the infinite fiat machine.Their
initial efforts don't work? They change the laws tomorrow
to give themselves a new sharp stick. They only really need
one really nasty stick, and they have dozens already.
komali2 - 2 hours ago
But that's exactly my point - the US government has the
kinds of enforcement power that deals with sending in
troops to kick down doors and lock people in steel
cages.Google has the kind of power that staves off that
from even happening in the first place. The US government
isn't a singular entity, it is comprised of several
hundred individually powerful people. Three branches,
plus several military branches, each with their own
branches of authority and people of power. Then you have
states with their own 3 branches and national guards,
police. You have a national police equivalent (NSA, CIA,
FBI, ATF, Border Control).That's a lot of people google
can go to and say "Interesting that you are into midget
porn, I wonder what would happen if the whole world knew
that?"That's a lot of people google can go to and say
"Did you know that your neighboring state's governor is
having an affair with a man? Give us this land grant for
server space and we'll give you the proof.""Give us
guaranteed protection from the Fed and we'll give you the
entire query history from all whitehouse IP
addresses.""Do not fuck with us or we will DDOS every
single DNS server in the world with our absurdly massive
server infrastructure.""Do not fuck with us or we will
turn the public against you by messaging the 63,000
people using our site per second""Do not fuck with us or
we will make your very existence invisible to 80% of the
people on the internet."
imcrs - 2 hours ago
After issuing their threat, and getting "no" back, they
would say -- "We do not negotiate with terrorists" and go
in with the guns. Collateral damage be damned.That's how
wars happen, and why it's a bad idea to make ultimatums
to the US government.
komali2 - 1 hours ago
Again, I'm not suggesting Google issues a public
statement before a congressional panel - "do the thing we
want, US government, or we'll get ya!" I'm saying they
could be much more insidious with the kind of power they
have.Like the King's head Surgeon - he could never take
on the King in hand to hand combat, but he can certainly
poison him slowly, over time and invisibly, in return for
more consolidated power or money or some other such thing
from the King's son.
JumpCrisscross - 1 hours ago
I don't think anyone would bother with guns. Order ISPs
switch off access to Google's servers and CDNs, order
power regulators cut off their power, freeze their bank
accounts (as well as those of the executive, employees
and vendors) and declare them insurrectionists. If Google
truly tried to act with insurrectionist intent, I'd
expect (and want) our government to react forcefully.
komali2 - 29 minutes ago
I'm just playing along with the fiction at this point, so
here's my response:1. Order ISPS to switch off access to
Google's servers and CDNs. Most internet traffic stops
working as any website using a google CDN breaks, all
analytics stops working, internet advertising breaks
almost entirely, the internet is suddenly a less
profitable and very scary, mostly unusable place. Google
releases as its death-throes the fact that the ISPs are
entirely to blame for this, gives coordinates of ISP
offices and pitchfork emporiums. Customers revolt, UN
issues a missive reminding the world that access to the
internet is a human right.2. Order power regulators to
cut off their power - Pretty similar to above. Internet
stops working very well, except Google continues to work
in other countries, and suddenly it doesn't really make
sense to do business in the USA. Google employees flee
abroad where they can. Opportunistic countries take
advantage of this and grant asylum.3. Freeze their bank
accounts - best idea yet, I think, except for I'm not
sure how it would be implemented. Government order comes
through declaring "Alphabet, Inc" to be entirely
comprised of terrorists? Not sure. Either way, Google
goes the way of Pablo Escobar and talks directly to bank
VPs - "give us some of the money / give us a warning you
get a freeze order / whatever, or we tell the world about
your midget porn / location of all your private estates /
your tax fraud." Alternatively, google uses its near
total access to civilian populations to cast the US
government as a totalitarian dictatorship issuing a coup
against the American people's access to free information
and fosters a revolution.
JumpCrisscross - 15 minutes ago
> Order ISPS to switch off access to Google's servers and
CDNs. Most internet traffic stops working as any website
using a google CDN breaks, all analytics stops working,
internet advertising breaks almost entirely, the internet
is suddenly a less profitable and very scary, mostly
unusable placeThe scenario is insurrection.
Communications going down while people are arrested is
perfectly acceptable.> Google goes the way of Pablo
Escobar and talks directly to bank VPsBank VPs have no
control over dollar clearing and settlement. In any case,
violating an OFAC freeze is automatic jail time for lots
of people. Nobody messes around with this.
BinaryIdiot - 3 hours ago
> The US Government is radically more powerful than any
corporation inside of its domain. It's not even remotely
close.For sure, that was never in dispute. No one
pretended there wouldn't be consequences, either. That
was never the point of my post or parent's. Take a look
at the examples for what was being referred to.
Bakary - 2 hours ago
Technically, the US President holds the power to end life on
Earth should he so desire. To the best of my knowledge, there
is no safeguard in place that could prevent such a course of
action if it were attempted. Even Comcast's power seems rather
pitiful in comparison.
TylerH - 1 hours ago
Military personnel are obligated by US and international law
to not comply with such an order. Generals have also gone on
record when asked about the potential for such crazy orders,
and said they would not follow such a command (like nuking
Mecca, etc.)
komali2 - 2 hours ago
True, something absolutely needs to be done about that. The
only failsafe is a US soldier illegally disobeying orders.
Actually, most soldiers that have a key would need to disobey
orders, because it wouldn't take too many nukes to end life
as we prefer it on earth.
mattferderer - 2 hours ago
Hopefully the soldier is like Stanislav Petrov.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
ben_jones - 51 minutes ago
The world should have a national holiday in his honor.
Possibly more deserved then any other human in history.
AndrewKemendo - 1 hours ago
To the best of my knowledge, there is no safeguard in place
that could prevent such a course of action if it were
attemptedI can tell you for certain that there are dozens of
safeguards. That scenario not only isn't possible, it's not
plausible. Yes the President has the "codes" but those codes
don't launch the missiles [1]. The scenario described is one
in which there are literally nuclear warheads on a ballistic
trajectory headed to the US with a verified source of
origin.I think the trope stays around because people, despite
what they say publicly, like the idea of an emperor style
president with supreme power.[1]
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-
wea...
alexilliamson - 1 hours ago
I think the article you mention supports the opposing from
the one you are defending: that article seems to be saying
the ultimately the President can decide to ignore everyone
else's judgement and launch anyway. Care to elaborate on
the dozens of safeguards? Anything that could actually
stop the Donald if he decided he'd had enough?A recent
radiolab episode (http://www.radiolab.org/story/nukes/)
made a pretty convincing argument that any US president
could on a whim destroy the world. It goes into the whole
history of why that power was given to a civilian, and not
the military.
avar - 1 hours ago
Radiolab did an episode recently[1] which disagrees with
that Bloomberg article.They interview ex-Secretary of
Defense William Perry asking him what controls there are,
if any, on a crazy president just willy-nilly deciding to
nuke something.He says there's absolutely none, even if the
president is in a room full of people who vehemently
disagree with him he alone makes the call to launch.1.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/nukes/
mr_spothawk - 1 hours ago
the Gov has a vested interest in other Govs believing
that the president's button can do a thing. i'm not sure
who to trust...but I did learn the word "Verisimilitude"
the other day.
komali2 - 40 minutes ago
Ex secretary isn't really part of "The Gov" anymore.
wwweston - 20 minutes ago
The article you're citing appears to support the point it
seems like you're trying to contradict -- it describes a
system where the president is given explicit authority at
every stage. There are opportunities for others to dissuade
him, but he has every freedom to disregard them, and they
have absolutely nothing in the way of legal power to stop
him.The only check currently seems to be people disobeying
his orders, and even that is accounted for to some extent
(see "mutiny is unlikely" in the article you cited).It
remains possible that ranking members of the executive
branch and military might cooperate to make sure the
president is isolated and unable to execute the protocol,
and perhaps even conceivable (if unlikely) that enough of
the military would refuse to participate. But that's the
only real check, and it extralegal rather than any part of
the system.If you've ever been suspicious of "the deep
state", think about that for a minute here, because it's
really just another catchy term for the one of a half-
handful of checks on the power under discussion here.> I
think the trope stays around because people, despite what
they say publicly, like the idea of an emperor style
president with supreme power.I suspect that people really
want to believe the system works, it can't be that messed
up, someone else thought of this, some one else is paying
attention, and they want things to be better, not worse,
and they will take care of it for you.
nothrabannosir - 2 hours ago
He would have to avoid triggering the 25th:Whenever the Vice
President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive departments or of such other body as Congress
may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
their written declaration that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of
the office as Acting President.I.e. he must convince the Vice
President et al. that ending all human life on Earth is a
good idea.
seiferteric - 2 hours ago
There would be no time. He literally has a phone on the
desk that he can launch all the nukes in a few minutes
notice, and NOBODY can stop him without illegally refusing
to follow orders (hope to god they would obviously) but
assuming everything works as designed the world would end.
briandear - 1 hours ago
Not exactly true. There is a two man rule to launch. On
paper the president has the power, but there are
extensive safeguards in place.
willstrafach - 1 hours ago
They are not allowed to override POTUS.
komali2 - 38 minutes ago
Correction: Overriding POTUS is illegal and has
consequences that do not include the planet being
nuked.They absolutely have the real authority (ability)
to refuse the order, and then the real authority to
prevent the nuke from being launched (by eating their
key, shooting anybody else that comes into the room,
shooting the key/console, etc).
voxic11 - 16 minutes ago
Though as I understand it each missile site has its own
control and 2 man system. Even if only 1 out of 10 obeyed
their orders and launched it would likely be the end of
mankind or at least civilization as we recognize it.
KGIII - 30 minutes ago
I also wasn't allowed to smoke pot, while enlisted.Which
is to say, the orders may not be followed by the persons
at the switch. I make no claim that they will, or will
not, be followed. I merely point out that rules aren't
always followed.
seiferteric - 1 hours ago
AFAIK the two man rule is to prevent a rogue soldier from
launching, they have no authority to question orders from
the president.
tomsmeding - 38 minutes ago
Worth noting: Comcast slurping up FBI traffic won't be very
profitable, I think. Assuming that the FBI is smart enough to
use encrypted communication (https is really easy nowadays),
Comcast is up for a challenge if they want to get interesting
data.
mr_spothawk - 1 hours ago
> I love this idea because I read too much cyberpunk"go on...">
What if Musk's first ship to Mars had a hidden Railgun on
it?"oh god... don't stop!"> ... the secret passcode of another
person ...brilliant.yeah... we (in the US) gave AI/meta-
cognative-entities/"corporations" a type of inalienable right
with the Citizens United ruling. and now the gov't is going to
find out what happens when those entities start testing the
boundaries of their container. (plot twist: the container
walls are permeable)
komali2 - 37 minutes ago
>we (in the US) gave AI/meta-cognative-
entities/"corporations" a type of inalienable right with the
Citizens United rulingHoly shit I hadn't even considered
this, this is awesome. New story idea.
mr_spothawk - 20 minutes ago
In describing "Metacognates" to friends I often use the
example of FedEx as a weird type of animal which eats
gasoline and shits boxes on doorsteps.
[deleted]
colejohnson66 - 28 minutes ago
> yeah... we (in the US) gave AI/meta-cognative-
entities/"corporations" a type of inalienable right with the
Citizens United ruling.Except that's not true. Corporations
have always had personhood. See 1 U.S.C. ?1[0]:> In
determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the
context indicates otherwise?> ...> the words "person" and
"whoever" include corporations, companies, associations,
firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as
well as individuals;Corporations being people is what allows
them to own property, use the judicial system (to sue), etc.
Basically anything corporations are able to do is because
they are people. The speech of a corporation is protected
under the First Amendment. Donating your money to a non-
profit is a form of speech, no? If I donate $25 to the EFF,
I'm agreeing with what the EFF does. That's a form of
expression that is protected under the First Amendment. All
Citizens United v. FEC did was affirm that money can be a
form of speech.Citizens United didn't establish any president
of corporate personhood anymore than Santa Clara County v.
Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US 394 (1886)[1] did
back in 1886.[0]:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1[1]: https://en.wi
kipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern....
mr_spothawk - 24 minutes ago
> Except that's not true.You're right.And now there's
precedent.
Nition - 3 hours ago
I love these ideas because - apart from the railgun one - the
far-fetched part isn't even whether those things are possible,
it's just whether anyone would want to.The Twitter nukes one
wouldn't even have to ruin trust in the platform that badly.
They could say the president's account got hacked. Hell, blame
the hack on China if you're already trying to start a war
there.
sappapp - 2 hours ago
You have some serious thinking to do
komali2 - 2 hours ago
If you're going to offhand dismiss someone's imaginative
ability, I think the onus is on you to provide a little
more insight than "you're stupid."
AndrewKemendo - 1 hours ago
It's going to happen. It's not question of if, but when.If a
corporation succeeds in building General AI with enough hooks
into basic infrastructure, and a loyal enough employee base,
then they will have a more powerful weapon than any nuclear
bomb. They can then build their own drone army that no
conventional military could stand up against.
[deleted]
takeda - 55 minutes ago
This also goes deeper with things like GovCloud. Where
government now no longer uses their own data center.This
theoretically gives a company power to shut the government if
they really wanted to.
lostlogin - 4 hours ago
The problem with this is that the people who Google makes money
from often aren't the biggest users, that would be blocking the
users rather than the customers. I'm unsure if that matters, it
would certainly be a massive wake up call to a lot of people.
marcoperaza - 26 minutes ago
Your key assumption is that Google has all this market power.
They don't. The only, and truly ONLY, reason that they're so big
and powerful is that everyone automatically goes to google when
in need of search. Their business would disappear in a hurry the
day that changes.What's one way that could change? Google stops
working for millions of people, so they start using another
product.
acomjean - 3 hours ago
I like it.If you've ever experienced the not too occasional
fighting between cable companies and some of the networks they
carry, it can get ugly. With both sides claiming they're in the
right. Sometimes the channels even go off the air because the
cable company won't pay what the networks
want.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_disputeThe only
problem is if say google pulls YouTube from comcast, its not like
customers have a plethora of other internet providers to choose
from, so they suffer.
cwkoss - 2 hours ago
Would be better to not block, but show a 30 second video
explaining why comcast sucks before each video.If you're
blocked, you'll only see the message once. If you have to
watch a video before instead, you'll get angrier and angrier
each time.
ygaf - 23 minutes ago
Don't preach to users that $ISP is bad, just tie the
inconvenience in to lack of net neutrality.
chiefofgxbxl - 2 hours ago
Also something to note: Google is not listed on the list of
participants on the "battle for the net" web page. [0]Is this a
mistake? Am I missing something?[0]
https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participantsEdit: I also
checked for the parent company "Alphabet", which also is not
listed.
tdb7893 - 4 hours ago
Wouldn't that both be horrible for business and also run them
into major anti-trust issues?
adventured - 3 hours ago
It would instantly bring on the full power of the US
Government, which can do almost anything it wants to to a
corporation through dozens of nasty approaches. I'm shocked at
the naivety in this thread after what we just witnessed with
the NSA v tech companies.Suddenly Google is facing a fine 10x
larger than what the EU just threw at them (after all, look at
the business % ratio regarding markets over the last decade,
the majority of their business has been in the US), and a dozen
agencies begin pursuing them on a variety of issues.The
government can do anything it wants to to Google at any time it
wants to do it. They have enough methods, they can make
Google's existence absolute hell.
bnewbold - 4 hours ago
To state the obvious, this proposal is antithetical to the
concept of network neutrality.Also, the belief that there would
be "competitors in the user's area that don't play stupid games"
that offer comparable services (eg, within a factor of 5x
bandwidth-per-dollar value) seems to be a misunderstanding of the
utility/monopoly/duopoly economics in play in many regions of the
USA.
baq - 3 hours ago
> To state the obvious, this proposal is antithetical to the
concept of network neutrality.the culture employs special
circumstances when the situation exceeds the moral capacity of
contact.or to put it differently, sometimes outside forces are
so strong that you either let your ethics... be flexible for
while or just disappear in the annals of history.whether OP's
particular action would be effective is a different question -
bing, ddg or baidu would gladly jump at the opportunity if this
wasn't coordinated.
ZainRiz - 3 hours ago
Therin lie dragonsThat's how you start thinking it's okay to
drop napalm and nuclear bombs on cities since "it'll end the
war faster"
[deleted]
baq - 3 hours ago
yes. i've never said i think it's fine, it's just (to me)
obvious that it's how some people think and how the world
works due to the fact some of those people were given power
to rule, or took it themselves.
thehardsphere - 3 hours ago
But that is OK if it does end the war faster, where "end
the war faster" is understood to mean "millions fewer
people will die"
civilitty - 3 hours ago
I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare net neutrality
to a total war, regardless of the comparison made.Anyone
who doesn't subscribe absolutely to radical honesty or to a
morality handed down by an all powerful being has to make
these kinds of decisions in their personal life all the
time and rarely do those decisions have as much impact as
net neutrality. Large companies are made up of people and
they shouldn't get a pass when they stand by and watch as
when the very foundations of their industries are destroyed
by extreme rent seeking just because they have shareholders
to answer to, most of whom are in a far better position
than the employees of the companies to jump ship when their
investments don't behave like they'd like them to.
mabbo - 2 hours ago
> this proposal is antithetical to the concept of network
neutralityExactly the point I'm trying to make. If Google turns
around and says "Fine, you don't like net neutrality? Let me
show you how this works both ways".The ISPs do not make the
product, they sell the access to the product. If the product
goes away, then they aren't selling anything at all- and their
customers will stop paying them.
takeda - 43 minutes ago
IMO the reason Google doesn't do much here is that they are
in a very good spot here. They are not in any danger, and if
anything ISPs would probably pay them to provide their
service.So I doubt Google would ever do anything at this
point.
ucaetano - 2 hours ago
You talk like customers actually have a choice in ISP...
erwinkle - 1 hours ago
Yep, most places I've lived, I've only ever had 1 option
(unless I want to pay for satellite internet lol)
drcube - 1 hours ago
There's always a choice. Suppose your ISP started charging
you $10,000 per month for the service you have now? Would
you pay it? Could you? No, you'd probably just go without
home service, or rely on your cellular data plan, or get
dialup, or just take an internet sabbatical until the ISP
cleaned up their act.For some people, their tolerance for
bullshit is less than others. For those people, perhaps
charging a dollar extra for YouTube access is enough. It
only takes a fairly small percentage of customers to put a
lot of pressure on service providers. Monopoly or not.
[deleted]
throwaway2048 - 1 hours ago
The idea that people should be willing to go without
Internet, and if they don't they clearly don't care
enough is self defeating and silly.
sushid - 1 hours ago
That's a poor way of trying to weasel out of the actual
definition of monopoly, which is defined as "a company or
group having exclusive control over a commodity or
service"[0].What you're describing is a substitute good.
When the "choice" is to not purchase said product/service
and look to alternatives, you're literally describing the
effect of a monopoly.[0]
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/monopoly
ucaetano - 52 minutes ago
We're talking about reasonably priced broadband services,
no need to be pedantic or literal.You can always put
money on the lottery several times, win, buy your own
satellite and have your own DTH service. Or kill
yourself, so that you no longer need internet.So no,
there isn't always a choice in broadband service. And
most times, there isn't a choice at all.
guelo - 3 hours ago
Network neutrality means that the network transit is neutral,
endpoints such as Google are free to do as they wish. For
example Google already blocks youtube videos based on ip
address geo region.But I agree that it wouldn't work because
the ISP monopolies are more entrenched than the web service
monopolies.
raverbashing - 3 hours ago
Of course it isIf ISPs don't see the point in it then they
can't complain when other don't follow it (and they get the
shaft)
minusSeven - 2 hours ago
>Google would probably lose money over itI think that's why they
won't.you are asking them to do something where they have a deep
conflict of interest not to.
ucaetano - 2 hours ago
> Make the site list competitors in the user's area that don't
play stupid games.Which competitors?
DaemonKrog - 19 minutes ago
So, abuse net neutrality to punish customers of ISPs who abuse
net neutrality.
mirekrusin - 3 hours ago
Yes, it would cost them a lot, billions probably, as it would be
unconstitutional action. They would be forced to close the shop
if they continued.[edit]It could however work if they throttle
priority isp traffic to counterbalance.
sloppycee - 3 hours ago
> unconstitutionalHow? Google is a private individual/company;
they can deny anyone service, so long as the reason is not
discriminating against a protected class.
Nomentatus - 1 hours ago
or using their market power to extend a monopoly.
jacksnipe - 3 hours ago
Now that Google (or rather, Alphabet) is also an ISP, wouldn't
they get in a lot of trouble for this? Seems anti-competitive.
[deleted]
bogomipz - 3 hours ago
Using regular folks who are already a captive audience, as foot
soldiers against big telecom is not very efficient and probably a
non-starter from a PR perspective.What is the net result of this?
People call up and complain to their ISP? Complaining hasn't
worked yet and that's the problem. You can complain all you want
but when there's no competition it doesn't matter.A far better
idea in my opinion would be for Google to spend money and muscle
in partnering to provide municipal broadband.If people had a
choice between a municipal broadband provider that preserved net-
neutrality or choosing the existing duopoly that wants to "rent
seek" then I think the net-neutrality issue might finally be able
to be put to rest.There are some case studies in successful
municipal broadband deployments
here:http://www.bbpmag.com/snapshot/snap0612.phpGoogle is already
partnering with NYC via Sidewalk Labs.
See:https://sidewalklabs.com/about/and LinkNYC is already up and
running, so its not much of a stretch:http://screenmediadaily.com
/citybridge-to-launch-linknyc-lar...
[deleted]
reitanqild - 3 hours ago
Well, -just place an annoying ad that shows up for everyone
including customers, employees and executives who use any google
property:"""You seem to be using
which is a lousy internet
provider for reasons x, y and z.Feel free to call them now at
or send a mail to and let them know what
you think.Also here are other known providers in your area:
You can also sign and to show your interest
to other sane providers that are considering offering fiber in
your area."""
notriddle - 2 hours ago
Didn't they already basically kill Internet Explorer this way?
reitanqild - 2 hours ago
Yes. And they are trying to kill every other browser as well
:-/At this point I dislike chrome for exactly the same
reasons I disliked IE: it is not good enough for me[0] and
its sheer dominance makes web creators lazy and triggers bean
counters to skimp on cross browser compatibility checks.But
this time they could actually use it for good.[0]: yep. You
would hear the same thing back then: You are the only one
wanting to use another browser. Just get over it and use IE.
nawgszy - 2 hours ago
>it is not good enough for meWell, I am curious: what makes
other browsers better for you? The other day I posed this
question in a thread, and the main answer was "a good
feeling inside".Then the news that Mozilla forces you into
being tracked by Google Analytics comes out, and that good
feeling is gone, so what's your use case?
reitanqild - 1 hours ago
Well, I am curious: what makes other browsers better for
you?Real extensions? Yeah I know they will be less useful
than they used to be but still way better than anything
else it seems.The fact that it handles my browsing habits
like a few hundred open tabs?Oh, and by now using almost
any other browser than chrome give me a happy feeling.
The limit goes somewhere between Edge and IE it seems
:-PThen the news that Mozilla forces you into being
tracked by Google Analytics comes out, and that good
feeling is gone, so what's your use case?I didn't see
that and didn't find anything when I searched now. Do you
have any pointers?
cdubzzz - 49 minutes ago
A bit of hyperbole, but here's the reference:
https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785
cdubzzz - 2 hours ago
Here's one for ya - I can (and do) run my own account [0]
and sync [1] server for Firefox.[0] https://mozilla-
services.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howtos/run...[1] https
://mozilla-
services.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howtos/run...
[deleted]
jameslk - 52 minutes ago
Wouldn't this basically be a form of economic tort? If so, I
doubt Google would want to be on the receiving end of the legal
consequences.
mouldysammich - 39 minutes ago
If net neutrality was gutted, wouldnt they be allowed to do
that? Is that not the same thing that the ISP is doing?
jameslk - 24 minutes ago
In the case of tortious interference, Google would be
selectively attempting to interfere with the existing
business relationship between the ISP and its customers by
targeting specific ISPs it deems as violating what it
considers as net neutrality.Where as an ISP is unaware of any
specific relationship and therefore isn't attempting to
interfere.IANAL but that's my interpretation of this specific
tort law.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference#
Elements
elorant - 3 hours ago
So if you're a customer of said companies tied with a long-term
contract you'd be caught in the middle and fucked up beyond
recognition. How on earth would something like that make things
better?
rpearl - 50 minutes ago
Ah yes, Google should definitely punish end users because of what
ISPs are trying to do.
scierama - 1 hours ago
> "any ISP who abuses net neutrality will have their customers
cut off from Google products"> Is this an insane idea? Yep.It
sounds like we're in agreement on the latter, as for the former;
the way it would play out is that Google Search, YouTube and
Gmail would fade and successful competitors would replace them
overnight.
[deleted]
[deleted]
aryehof - 2 hours ago
Is this just an issue in the USA?
tmaly - 3 hours ago
Another channel to consider, but much more of a long tail play is
to put some effort into the state level political races. Many
politicians with the exception of wealthier business people get
started at the state level.
protomyth - 2 hours ago
Does anyone have actual legislation written up that I can point my
Congresspeople to? Is there a bill that can be introduced that
will accomplish the objective of "Net Neutrality"?
zackbloom - 4 hours ago
If you use Cloudflare you can install the Battle for the Net
widget: https://www.cloudflare.com/apps/net-neutrality
bobcallme - 4 hours ago
"Net Neutrality" in its final form did not solve or fix any
problems with the Internet. The definition of "Net Neutrality" is
poorly defined, too vague and does not have any proposed
legislation attached to "fix" things. Even when new rules were
implemented, ISPs still throttled torrents and manipulated traffic.
The only way to fix the Internet is to do so from a technical
perspective, not by adding more regulations that ISPs won't obey
(they work that into their business model). The "Internet" has
never been free and has always been controlled by a handful of
entities. The only fix for the Internet is if everyone actively
participates in the Internet's infrastructure and we work to create
technologies that thwart active threats from ISPs or that gives
ISPs competition.;TLDR I don't support Net Neutrality.
bluetwo - 4 hours ago
OK. Does the current situation cause harm? Is there a good reason
why it needs to change?
[deleted]
mr_spothawk - 43 minutes ago
I've mentioned a number of times before, but I'm actually
advocating to my friends against their participation today for
the reason that I believe, if the Evil ISP acts in a crumby way,
that it will create demand for better service. And I think that's
the only way to get to a Mesh Internet For The People, By The
People.My position is that: We don't need big pipes (or millions
of hours of television piped to us every month), we need the
interfaces and hardware for connecting with each other.
Tasboo - 4 hours ago
So since it doesn't do everything you want you are totally
against it?
bobcallme - 3 hours ago
> "Net Neutrality" in its final form did not solve or fix any
problems with the Internet.I'm against it because it as an idea
has failed in both its proposal and implementation. If people
are going to whine and rally for a "fix", they should at least
propose an action that will actually fix things instead of
complaining. Proposing new legislation (which I'm not fully in
favor of) or expanding rules would be doing something.
DaemonKrog - 8 minutes ago
I'm also of the same opinion. So, don't think you're alone here.
nickysielicki - 3 hours ago
(This comment is a little bit disorganized, so I apologize for
that.)Far too many people don't seem to understand the arguments
against net neutrality as it has been proposed... There's been much
made about the "astroturfing" and automated comments on the FCC
website that go against net neutrality-- but what about the
reverse? John Oliver doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Reddit and HN provide warped perspectives on the issue.Don't you
guys realize that no matter what policy is chosen, someone is
getting screwed and someone going to profit? Don't get me wrong,
the ISPs are not exactly benevolent organizations. But I don't
think they're evil either. Plain and simple, if you think this is a
cut-and-dry, good-versus-evil, conglomerates-versus-littleguy
issue, I think you're not hearing both sides of the issue. This
issue is between content providers that serve far more bits than
they take in, and ISPs, and there are billions of dollars on both
sides.In other words, don't think for a second that this is about
protecting small internet websites from having to pay ransom.
That's not what is going to happen. The only people who are going
to be squeezed are the giants like Google, Netflix, etc., and it's
no surprise that these are the people who are making such a fuss
about it today.The particular event that made me reconsider net
neutrality was digging into the details of the
Comcast/Netflix/Level3 fiasco a couple years ago. Everything I had
heard about that situation made it sound to me like Comcast was
simply demanding ransom. The reality of the situation is that L3
and Netflix acted extremely recklessly in how they made their
deals, and IMO deserved everything that came to them. Much is made
about "eyeball ISPs" and the power it gives them. In reality, I
think Netflix has more power in swaying consumers, and I think they
used that power to bail themselves out of a sticky situation by
badmouthing Comcast.I don't see how compensatory peering agreements
would work out well in a net neutral world. Specifically, the FCC
proposal for Title II classification (paraphrasing here) said that
the FCC would step in when it believed one party was acting
unfairly. It is far too open-ended, doesn't list any criteria for
what that means, and it's not the FCCs job anyway, the FTC should
be doing that.But in general I don't think net neutrality is a good
idea. I think that people are out of touch with internet access in
rural parts of the US, and I don't think NN is beneficial for that
situation at all. My grandmother pays $30/mo for internet access
that she barely uses, and I don't think it's right to enshrine into
law that Comcast can't offer her a plan where she pays $5/mo
instead for limited access to the few sites she uses.As a
bandwidth-hogging internet user, a lack of net neutrality will
probably mean that I will pay more. But maybe that's how it is
supposed to be. The internet didn't turn out to be what the
academics once hoped it would be. And that's okay. The internet
should serve everyone, however they want to use it, and the market
should be built around that principle-- not around decades-old
cypherpunk ideals.I think it's incredible that behemoths like
Google have the nerve to paint this as if they care about an open
internet. It's obvious that their dominance is what makes an open
internet irrelevant.
pelbred - 1 hours ago
> My grandmother pays $30/mo for internet access that she barely
uses, and I don't think it's right to enshrine into law that
Comcast can't offer her a plan where she pays $5/mo instead for
limited access to the few sites she uses.ISPs are too greedy for
that nonsense. You're more likely to see $30 becoming the base
price, and $50 is what it costs to access more content. Price
shouldn't be based on what sites you like to visit. Under the
title 2 designation, the internet is treated as a utility, so
ISPs can't charge consumers based on how they use the internet,
akin to how your water company can't charge you a premium if you
decide to drink the water instead of using it to water your lawn.
Abolishing net neutrality would allow for just that.> As a
bandwidth-hogging internet user, a lack of net neutrality will
probably mean that I will pay more.Why? ISPs already have data
caps to charge customers more. Data caps are another story
altogether... The cost of increasing broadband capacity has
declined much faster than the increase in data traffic. For that
reason alone Sonic doesn't impose data caps. If an ISP as big as
Comcast says data caps are because heavy users are costing them
more money, or saturating their network, it's a bunch of
bullshit. One of the big reasons some ISPs have data caps is to
keep customers from cord cutting cable TV. AT&T owns DirectTV,
Comcast is a huge cable TV provider, they don't want customers
relying solely on services like Netflix. If they can get
customers to pay for both internet and TV, they will.
soundwave106 - 2 hours ago
Network neutrality probably would not be as big of an issue if
ISPs in America were not quasi-monopolies. In a market with
healthy competition, it seems much less likely that the only
choice available would be some tiered, managed entity that
throttles back "non-favored" traffic -- perhaps that option would
be available at the lower end, but a "power user" market with net
neutrality practices would probably exist as well.Unfortunately,
many markets are served by only one high speed ISP in the United
States. This makes the net neutrality fears somewhat more
realistic.I will say that from this angle, I put quite a bit more
weight on correcting other anti-competitive practices pushed into
law by communications companies. Things like states banning and
suing municipal broadband efforts come to mind. The American
marketplace for Internet ISPs as a result is quite distorted,
certainly far from an open, competitive marketplace.
peterashford - 2 hours ago
As a New Zealander, I find it extraordinarily inappropriate that
global infrastructure like the Internet is being shaped by the
whims of US politics and corporate culture. The Internet is a
global network of global concern and it should be above the
manoeuvring of Republicans and American Internet providers
wmf - 1 hours ago
Are there any examples of this happening?
[deleted]