Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdrock | Hacker News Reader

I feel like you're trivializing the barriers to first match basic services provided by ISP giants and then provide competitive differences on top of that. One of the reasons people are clamoring for net neutrality legislation is that the relevant markets don't have significant competition to make neutrality happen naturally.

View on HN

Absolutely.

We have two options for high speed internet here. AT&T and Comcast. Comcast is the only option that gets me above 10Mbps.

The only alternative on the horizon? AT&T's new service. At least that'll be a viable alternative to Comcast, but it's still hardly what one could call variety.

Where do I live? Atlanta, in the city limits, less than three miles from the heart of the city.

When/where available try out Sprint 4G/Clear if you can live with 6mbps.

I've heard conflicting reports of reception and/or speed with Clear. Clear apparently isn't good for things like gaming (horrible latency) and/or large file transfers.

I can download 175 MB or 4 GB bittorrent downloads just fine. It's getting things uploaded which takes a little persistence.

Latency is horrible. I consider this a plus -- no temptation.

An internet connection with horrible latency is like a car that won't drive up hills. I seriously couldn't work on a connection where my terminal sessions lag too far behind my typing.

And this is why the proposal leaves wireless out.

It may be possible to use technical measures (QoS etc) to reduce the latency problems on wireless for applications that need low latency (eg Voip).

Do we really want to regulate now to rule this out? I have very mixed feelings on this.

Understandable, but the point I was trying to make more than anything was simply that Google "wasn't" actually trying to hate us, not really. The title biasied before I even hopped.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com