Hacker News Reader

Comment by seibelj | Hacker News Reader

Net Neutrality absolutists need to tone down their rhetoric. When NN activists say zero rating is unfair, they are speaking from an ivory tower. It is better for a poor Iraqi to get free Wikipedia even though that hurts other upstart wikis, than for poor Iraqis to have no Wikipedia at all. Once you accept this premise, you must then accept that exceptions to NN exist. Once you accept that, you must then take every single exception to NN and weigh it on a case-by-case basis about whether it's "fair" or not.

Barring some government oversight panel that bans or allows anti-NN practices on a case by case basis, I think it's better for the market to decide. ISP's shouldn't be able to extort businesses to be allowed in at all, but offering premium speeds (as Netflix has paid for years), free data, etc. are within the realms of anti-NN practices that I feel are acceptable.

The net neutrality issue is not black and white.

View on HN

> It is better for a poor Iraqi to get free Wikipedia even though that hurts other upstart wikis, than for poor Iraqis to have no Wikipedia at all.

I don't accept this premise. This is a false dichotomy because these are not the only two options. There is a third, better option: to get access to the entire internet.

A company offering you that choice is using a classic game-theoretic bargaining approach: commit to only allowing a restricted set of possibilities, of which the other person's best option is the one you want to happen. This makes it sound like the company has no chioce in the matter: they are just presenting you with the options, and you are the one who has to choose between eliminating this poor Iraqi's internet or giving her partial access. In reality, the company has stacked the deck by presenting you with this particular pair of options.

I'm not saying it's completely illegitimate for a company to want to sponsor free partial internet for those who don't have it in some places of the world.

But I am saying it is opposite from the ideal we should be working towards in already-developed countries like the USA. Ideally, the company providing internet should not at all be vertically integrated with the company providing websites on it and should have no incentive to prioritize one over the other.

I remember a progression going something like this:

1. Local folks taking turns calling a handful of BBSes.

2. BBSes synchronizing some messages with each other, even long-distance.

3. BBSes providing some limited Internet services (email, newsgroups).

4. Quasi-Internet services like Prodigy, Compuserve, AOL.

5. Slow but "real" Internet access. All content available but still had to ration use.

6. Fast, ubiquitous, unmetered, unthrottled Internet.

7. An ISP that doesn't care if you run a server.

While I strongly sympathize with anyone sitting at #6 or #7 who views a move to any previous step as a huge regression, I can't sympathize with denying people any kind of connectivity unless they can snap their fingers and manifest the infrastructure to enable #5. All of those previous steps served a purpose at the time.

Developing economies have an opportunity to learn from our mistakes as first mover, and leapfrog ahead to something more robust against all these threats we're facing today (centralization, stratification, eavesdropping, denial of service, walled gardens...).

BBSes were an artifact of the old phone infrastructure, so that's not a necessary phase, but otherwise the story would look roughly the same: Local communities gradually connect peer-to-peer and then interconnect. This time wirelessly, securely, without entrenched middlemen.

I think we're on different pages somewhat because you seem to be thinking mostly about challenges facing developing economies in various parts of the world, whereas I'm thinking mostly about the infrastructure, vampiric monopolies, and regulations in the USA, where we are mostly trying to (1) prevent regressions from #6 backwards, (2) move up places that sit at #5 for no reason other than monopoly ISPs, (3) improve infrastructure for true #5s.

If you are a poor American on a Lifeline phone (free phone provided by the government) with a very limited data plan, no one is (at this time) willing to subsidize unlimited services for this user. But maybe some companies, for their services, are willing to subsidize them. And in my opinion, it's better for the poor person to have access to some services than no services.

I see your point and it does make some sense. But imagine this analogous situation, a poor American cannot afford the electricity bill for her home, and a lightbulb company offers to provide reduced-cost electricity with the conditions that (1) she can only use lightbulbs purchased from that company in her home, and (2) the electricity only powers the lightbulbs - no other appliances in the house can be turned on.

Now you could make the same argument that you made in your post, but I don't think the lightbulb company comes off looking so good.

There is no limit on my truconnect phone for calls texts or data. There are multiple companies set up outside the general relief office and I am eligible for a phone from each one; so, even if there wasn't a generous data plan, a combination of phones would solve that. As does using free wifi which is available at all libraries and police stations where I live.

Posting garbage about poor people's situations that is untrue only serves to hurt everybody. Please stop.

I have never heard of a government provided phone with unlimited data plan. I don't think the government should be providing a "combination of phones" for free to each poor person. I am happy you can use free WiFi. I think that if you want to watch YouTube and google is willing to pay for your data, that's OK and no one will be hurt.

I think it's worse. It might provide some low quality entertainment as a TV replacement, which just takes up people's time. It might be in that person's interest at the time but not in the interest of society in general.

I don't like to tell others what is the best use of their time, or what "society" wants them to be doing. People are free to choose what to do with their own time.

Yes and no. I think it's entirely reasonable for ISPs to innovate, play with zero-rating, etc. I just think it should be done neutrally: if an ISP wants to zero-rate, they should publish a rate schedule that applies to anyone who wants to participate. If an ISP wants to try other novel services (QoS, whatever), I think the same principle should apply: make it fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory, and transparent.

Verizon's zero-rating of themselves is anything but.

I believe Verizon can zero rate their own services, and it's OK. I also believe that they should have to allow zero rating of any service, even a competitor's, if the service provider is willing to pay for their users' data using transparent, open pricing that is equally applied.

The problem with Verizon's zero-rating of their own product is that it's very hard to define what they're charging for it and therefore what the terms should be for competitors.

That argument seems pretty contrived. It's really hard to imagine a situation where Wikipedia is delivered to Iraqis on some kind of special limited internet pipe. What would the business proposition be?

It's not so hard to imagine the harm that comes from Verizon or AT&T picking winners based on the relationships they have and blocking innovation.

> It's really hard to imagine a situation where Wikipedia is delivered to Iraqis on some kind of special limited internet pipe.

FWIW, that isn't just a hypothetical situation; it's already happening. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero

We're also talking about Net Neutrality in the United States, largely, and I would reckon almost explicitly.

What does that have to do with Iraq and its internet access?? Not that it isn't important. It just has nothing to do with internet access in the United States.

you're not exactly elaborating on how that example applies.

I see no evidence here, yet you claim Net neutrality 'absolutists' need to tone down their rhetoric, and give no cited or strong example as to what is actually wrong with net neutrality.

OK, so philosophically speaking, you only care about net neutrality in America? I thought that NN was a universal philosophy about the freedom of the internet.

If you do believe that Iraqis should be able to have zero rated Wikipedia, because they are poor, shouldn't poor Americans (of which their are millions living in abject poverty) be able to get zero rated services as well?

I do care personally. I'm just saying net neutrality policies implemented in the United States* effecting only companies that operate their networks in the US is not a great place to discuss whether or not an Iraqi citizen or the country if Iraq should implement net neutrality regulations

However the FCC of which the article speaks (which sets the tone of the conversation that is about what article I would naturally think) is based and regulating companies and is regulating institutions within ....you guessed it! The United States.

I don't believe Iraqis should have zero rated internet access. I also believe you aren't quoting me saying as such. Again I ask: how is what Iraqs telecom regulations are have an impact on the FCC?

And to be clear I believe strongly in net neutrality in the USA and abroad. It just holds no direct bearing on FCC policy.

I think zero rating in essence limits access, allows ISPs to pick winners and losers on the internet, and could threaten the next great platform for free speech.

I'm still awaiting a real factual rebuttal to net neutrality. I'd love to hash these ideas out. How does zero rating actually benefit anyone? How does the current changes and near term purposed structure of telecom regulations benefit the average consumer? How would you seek to increase competition specifically.

Not hide vagaries of "reduce regulation". What regulations exactly?

In this same thread I posted at length what I believe to be strong facts in favor of net neutrality. I can re post them here if you like.

> It is better for a poor Iraqi to get free Wikipedia even though that hurts other upstart wikis, than for poor Iraqis to have no Wikipedia at all.

You're describing colonialism. Let me rephrase what you said: "It's better for poor Iraqi to get free access to American web services even though that hurts other upstart web services (such as Iraqi ones), than for poor Iraqis to have no web services at all."

How is this different that colonial powers sending back wealth from the colonies they conquered? If "eyeballs" are the currency of the internet, what you're describing channels those eyeballs to US companies while suppressing local competition that might keep that wealth in the countries of origin.

I resent the accusation.

It's like saying the poor Iraqi is better off getting free coca-cola, and getting locked into coca-cola for the rest of his life, than actually getting water (and, if they desire, the possibility of coca-cola).

A country growing its infrastructure, which is apparently not yet essential, under the perverse influence of a non-neutral playing field, is a country that will have immense trouble shaking that influence off in the future. As an example, look at America and its relationship to cars vs. public transport.

If you want me to "bite a bullet", here I'm biting it: The Iraqi is better off without internet. Give him true choice or let him continue to be free of the delusion that Facebook == The Internet.

And this is exactly where I philosophically disagree with you. I would rather the Iraqi have access to Wikipedia than have no internet at all. It's saying that you, as a rich American, know what's best for poor foreigners. You would demand someone get everything, or they get nothing.

I'm not a rich american, you're a bit presumptive there.

I'm from Peru. I came from a well-off peruvian background, and I've seen the families of my rich peruvian peers as well as foreigners exploit the hell out of poor people in that country, all while claiming that anyone who wants to enforce some minimum standards or think long-term, is "condescending", or "paternalistic".

I've put forward the case of America being hooked on an endless and destructive addiction to cars. I can bring up many others, such as the existing ones with opioids, or unhealthy food. What do you put forward? How many drug pushers have a healthy relationship to their clientele, and help them knock the habit as soon as possible?

Sorry for presuming you are a rich American instead of a "well-off" peruvian. You are the one comparing drug dealers to free Wikipedia, so I don't know where to begin the argument as you already went off the deep end!

It's not free Wikipedia that's the problem, it's free Facebook that's the problem.

Stop being disingenuous, you know full-well that's what Zuckerberg was aiming for with `internet.org`.

Lets be honest here. Wikipedia isn't going to be funding the expansion of internet networks on the basis that it can fund priority zero rating. It will be American or Chinese consumer facing companies with massive bankrolls and business models built on addictive consumer engagement. Think Amazon fighting Aliexpress for priority access to the Iraq marketplace on the basis of network access, rather than efficiency in product logistics.

The idea that NN vs. non-NN network proliferation is an intrinsically paternalistic battle is flipped on its head when cast in real terms.

It's revealing how you suddenly change the example from "Facebook" to "Wikipedia".

What if instead of wikipedia it was zombo.com?

I don't accept either the assertion regarding being in an ivory tower or the premise regarding Wikipedia and Iraqis.

I'm not sure I agree with the premise you baldly assert: could you explain why it is true?

If you think that it's unfair that Iraqis can access Wikipedia for free because the data is zero rated, then you disagree with my premise, and you are a net neutrality absolutist.

If you believe that it is OK that Iraqis can access Wikipedia for free via zero rating, then there are exceptions to NN, because zero rating is inherently anti-NN. From then on, it is a slippery slope. Is it OK to zero rate data only in "poor" countries? The moment they get rich enough, must we ban it? Is any non-profit allowed to zero rate, but all for-profits are not?

My point is, once you open the door to anti-NN practices being acceptable, you must then start analyzing all situations individually.

I respect NN absolutists although I disagree with them. At least they have a coherent philosophy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com