Hacker News Reader

Comment by ocdtrekkie | Hacker News Reader

This is one of the main reasons I am not panicked about net neutrality. Net neutrality favors giant, centralized entities that have more than enough issues of their own. Net neutrality is, in effect, designed to preserve the status quo of the Internet, as it is ideally beneficial to net neutrality's primary sponsors: Google and Netflix.

I think there are ISP options that net neutrality prohibits which are worth exploring for some people, and if repealing net neutrality benefits decentralization or creates a radical shift in the Internet design instead, I won't consider that a catastrophic outcome.

Fragmentation, in this context, is the negative connotation of the word decentralization.

View on HN

"Net neutrality favors giant, centralized entities that have more than enough issues of their own. Net neutrality is, in effect, designed to preserve the status quo of the Internet, as it is ideally beneficial to net neutrality's primary sponsors: Google and Netflix."

You clearly don't understand how any of this works. Not having NN is much closer to what you're describing, as it will stop new competitors from being able to compete, because the big guys can pay to always be faster/cheaper/more accessible/free.

I heavily disagree. Google and Netflix together account for approximately 70-80% of all Internet traffic. All of the rest of the Internet is a footnote from the standpoint of traffic management.

The understanding that is so often missed here, is that Google and Netflix are large enough that ISPs want to negotiate those arrangements individually, because it's a significant part of their business. None of their competitors, none of the startups, even make a blip on the radar of an ISP.

If ISPs start billing websites, they will be sending out bills to two companies, and only those two companies.

"I think there are ISP options that net neutrality prohibits which are worth exploring for some people, and if repealing net neutrality benefits decentralization or creates a radical shift in the Internet design instead, I won't consider that a catastrophic outcome."

Like what? Any examples? Also the word "innovation" is not an example, even if it's the example I hear most. "You can't possibly understand because it's complicated" isn't an example either. If not I'm fine with the status quo.

Example from the most extreme end of what people hate about what the repeal might mean: I have no problem if an ISP wants to offer an extremely affordable Internet plan that explicitly doesn't work with streaming video for low income families. I'd rather ISPs gate the content by type than cripple them with a 5 Mbps or 10 Mbps throttle like a general low cost Internet line today.

I really hate the current speed tiering model used by most landline providers, because it means ISPs have the capacity available but are intentionally reducing your service quality because you haven't paid them enough to justify providing the best quality they can offer.

I understand why Google and Netflix would be strongly against something like that though, it reduces their customer base for YouTube and Netflix.

Except Netflix has formally stated they don't care about Net Neutrality anymore. If they get throttled, they can tell their customers the ISP is doing it, and the ISP will face massive backlash. Netflix is now a big incumbent force that benefits from unequal service. Netflix DID support it in 2014, when they were smaller, not so much anymore.

This is classic propaganda. When a company explicitly states they don't care about something, but that you should care about it... doesn't the very fact they're posting about it indicate they care?

Also, this is Netflix caring, today: https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933042368156123136

>Net neutrality favors giant, centralized entities that have more than enough issues of their own...Google and Netflix

What about the next level up, the ISP? Doesn't repealing NN favor those giant centralized entities such as AT&T and Comcast?

If you look at one of my other responses in this thread, you'll see I am largely in favor of ISPs being able to experiment with alternative models of billing for Internet usage. Bear in mind, the whole "you'll suddenly have to pay extra to see this website" nonsense is just that... nonsense.

Also, bear in mind, ISPs are a tiny threat compared to Google. None of the ISPs we're talking about have a scope outscaling the United States, but Google is a global threat that has the influence and power to bully individual countries into compliance with what they want. Suffice to say, the ISPs are not the giant entity here, relatively speaking.

ISPs can and should be fought by the FTC when they engage in unfair business practices or collusion. Ajit Pai's plan includes granting the FTC additional authority to do just that.

Also, we've already started to see wireless home Internet plans in the 4G space, and that's likely to continue to grow when 5G launches. A lot of households are mobile only at this point, which presents a very different avenue of competition. I have and will always have a wired landline, but the wireless competition with wireline providers will likely help keep things moving on a competition front.

I agree Google is a definite global threat, but how are you so sure that ISPs won't begin charging for access to internet content like they do for cable content?

Well, first of all, bear in mind that cable content involves partnerships between the provider and the content. And even when T-Mobile offers it's Binge On-type services, that's through an agreement as well.

The idea that an ISP could just arbitrarily block a given site without being paid a fee and without getting sued to oblivion is silly. Most of what Netflix and stuff is upset about is being asked to pay for specific peering agreements, which is, IMHO, perfectly fine. If Netflix wants optimized networking just for them, they may have to pay extra for it.

>The idea that an ISP could just arbitrarily block a given site without being paid a fee and without getting sued to oblivion is silly.

From the summary items listed here[1], NN explicitly bans blocking of websites.

If NN is repealed, wouldn't that make it legal? And if it is legal, wouldn't that make any lawsuits against it frovolous?

[1]https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/12/392544534...

The fact that an extraneous law is removed doesn't make everything explicitly banned by it legal. There's already a litany of laws regarding unfair and anticompetitive business practices which have been and will continue to be illegal. I find most net neutrality advocates seem to ignore this entirely.

We have existing laws that, appropriately applied by regulations, already would prohibit an ISP from barring access to a competitor's content services.

So it's a redundant fail safe then? Why remove a failsafe?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com