Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluetidepro | Hacker News Reader

What I don't fully understand is why isn't larger tech companies like Facebook, Netflix, Google, Twitter, Amazon, etc. making a big fuss about this on their sites to warn their users and help fight against it? Are they not as worried about this? Does it actual benefit them in some ways cause they can box out smaller competition since they can afford to pay ISP's or something?

For example, if Facebook saw this as a real threat, even a basic banner at the top of their site could help warn and give action to those people who don't understand this or are not sure how to help?

I just don't fully understand why I'm only seeing people post about this on social media, but the companies used in majority of the examples of what it will effect are so quiet about it? Can anyone explain this further on why they are not making a big deal and informing their users to help fight this?

View on HN

Iirc the netflix CEO himself said in the beginning of this that net neutrality is good for small to medium upstarts and bad for incumbents. Netflix now is an incumbent with enough bargaining power to get a good price for that access and fastlane. Netflix future competitor won't have that bargaining power and will be forced to offer their product more expensively.

Same with all the big e-businesses

So are you implying that the tech giants used in all the examples of why we should be saving this are the ones that don't actually even care, because this would help them stay giants and hurt new competition from rising to compete with them? ...If that's the case, I feel like the media should change their prospective in promoting awareness to fight for the companies that this is ACTUALLY going to effect more so then the ones it won't (the tech giants most have used in their examples).

Those companies don't exist yet. What sounds better "If you don't save net neutrality, you will pay extra for Facebook!"

"Without net neutrality you might have to pay for a service that doesnt exist yet!"

How about something along the lines of “Without net neutrality the next Netflix, Google or Facebook won’t happen.”

the media owned by whom again?

Probably because they've made the realization that while it will cost them more money to operate, they actually can afford to pay off the ISPs while any fledgling competition that bubbles up doesn't stand a chance of doing so.

Its called Regulatory Capture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Those companies got big enough that net neutrality now works against their interests.

It's because potentially the ISPs could try and force both the tech companies and the consumer to pay more or have their service downgraded. They already tried that with Netflix before these regulations were added in the first place.

And Facebook (to use an example) is already under alot of heat for the stuff the Russians pulled in the last election. They gotta deal with the current administration for at least the next few years regardless of what happens with the FCC. So they can be vocal about this in some ways, but not in others.

They already control the internet. The end of ISP net neutrality isn't about displacing the incumbents, it's about charging the incumbents rent to help maintain their position. This, along with anything else that they can afford that startups can't, helps them massively.

I think it's clear as water those companies you refer to stand to gain from "free and open internet" (for getting ransacked by businesses) because they're incumbents.

Its taking away title 2, not enforcing draconian content policing like PIPA and SOPA

Reply on news.ycombinator.com