Ask HN: Real reason against net neutrality? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Real reason against net neutrality?

6 pointsCeezy16 comments

I'm curious to know what are valid reasons against net net neutrality

{I am not opposed to net neutrality. That doesn't mean the term isn't loaded with corporate interests}

Net neutrality favored one group of corporate interests over another group. An ISP offering cable TV service was forced to carry competing content from Netflix. They had to carry as much as Netflix could push down the wire. If Netflix was overloading their system, the ISP got the angry phone calls, not Netflix.

The ISP was responsible for carrying data streams bloated with Google ads. The ISP was responsible for keeping Apple's app store apps connected. The ISP was responsible for carrying Facebook's local targeted advertising that competes with its advertising products. It is forced to carry Amazon's ads that are devastating local retailers and their advertising budgets.

I'm not against net neturality. But I'm not sure what it means. Google was never regulated to produce neutral search results and Google is integra to web usage. It built its business by offloading costs onto ISP's and lobbying to defend the regulations.

Google is not regulated but they actually created their business. When ISP they actually build internet but they are not alone. Because internet is a interconnexion of network. And a lot these network were build by states(the firsts interation internet was created by US military). How could we paid them to use some NASA network...?

Your power company is responsible for increasing power consumption. Etc.

(I'm pro-net-neutraility, for the record)

By not having net neutrality, being an ISP is less profitable. This sounds like it's only supporting those "greedy corporate fat cats," but consider this: why are there so few ISP's in the first place? Answer: it's not really profitable. By removing net neutrality, you give the little guys a lot better chance at their own ISP's.

> Answer: it's not really profitable.

Do you have evidence supporting this claim?

Google and Facebook have been pulling huge profits thanks to pushing their dominating contents/ads without payment to net-neutrality-shackled ISPs. If ISPs could negotiate for some of that money they could invest in better connections for the end-users; Google and Facebook would enjoy smaller profits; pressure would mount to completely eliminate local franchise monopolies; new, competing ISP technologies would be developed; and all levels of government would be (properly) limited from interfering with Internet technology and services. Maybe "neutrality" is not quite the correct meaning of what was done to ISPs, and to the American public.

Here's an argument:

If I'm an ISP startup, how can I differentiate myself from one of the major providers? For example, if I wanted to offer enhanced speeds for downloading large files or if I wanted to offer a VOIP-optimizd network -- I couldn't do any of that.

If networks are a commodity, then there's zero incentive for a new entrant -- there are also zero incentives to improve existing networks -- why bother? Let's pretend Comcast starts to throttle some traffic. Some new company could emerge where they have the marketing advantage of not throttling traffic -- customers will go to the new service if not being throttled is important to them. Comcast, in order to keep their customers then has to stop throttling. So now the new startup can say, ok, Comcast and us -- we aren't throttling -- but now we're going to lower our prices. Comcast then has to lower their prices. New startup now has some other new innovation -- we're going to give you unlimited YouTube on mobile for free. Now, another company says, that they'll give unlimited Netflix AND YouTube for free. Finally another company comes along as says they're going to give you unlimited everything.

With net neutrality none of those scenarios would ever happen. Now, to be fair, those scenarios are difficult now -- but not because of Net Neutrality, but because of the lack of competition due to the way municipalities and neighborhoods essentially provide monopoly positioning to the major companies. THAT is the real problem. Many parts of the country only have a single high speed provider -- however At the 10Mbps/1Mbps threshold about 90 percent of census blocks have at least two providers.

At the 25Mbps download/3Mbps upload broadband standard -- there are no ISPs at all in 30% of developed US census blocks. What's the incentive for new entrants to those markets?

I live in France where supposedly we have net neutrality -- yet the fastest speeds I can get are 8mps down and 0.8mbps up. And there's a single provider: Orange. I don't live in a city. Fiber is at least 5 YEARS away in my area and there's zero incentive for a new entrant -- even from the existing big names in French telecoms. Orange has no incentive to upgrade the speeds because it isn't like they can provide any special deals with content providers that could provide them with a financial incentive to upgrade their networks. Maybe Netflix could partner with Orange to bring fiber to our area -- an impossible deal with Net Neutrality.

Despite hyperbole to the contrary -- Net Neutrality isn't black and white. There are a large number of unintended consequences that people on both sides fail to consider.

The short answer is that the real problem isn't the lack of NN -- it's the lack of competition which is promoted by the misguided priorities of municipalities.

Thank you for an interesting answer to the question raised. The censors still down vote it. Unbelievable.

"Don't be snarky." "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

On the contrary, it is quite interesting. It does not seem "snarky" in the slightest. I like to read comments about voting on comments.

Ok.. (I was going to say, I'm new here, but I notice you've hardly commented, in 2 years on here.) So I shouldn't expect people to follow the site guidelines, or ask them to?

Edit: Actually, reading the parent again, "The censors still down vote it. Unbelievable." Seems massively snarky. Not sure how you can't see that. These "Oh poor me" mentions of "censors", "HN groupthink" - whatever someone's childish conspiracy-label is for when they dont get their way or everyone doesn't agree with them - are 100% snarky. At best, they carry an assumption of "I'm right here, the innocent persecuted; you're wrong, 'them', the faceless enemy" etc.

I guess sometimes there is a difference of opinion about the topic commented on which leads, as here, to disagreement how justified whining/complaining about downvoting is. Which is I guess why there's the simple rule, don't complain about downvoting. From what I can see, the people who complain about it have made false assumptions about why. Their complaints are their outward revenge for the pain of their false beliefs.

For your argument, wouldn't history still be a key marketing tactic?

If an ISP started to throttle traffic, then reversed their decision, the damage has already been done. The message would switch from "Unlike Comcast, we don't throttle traffic" to "Unlike Comcast, we will never throttle traffic".

thanks, I also live in France, and I would a very different way of seeing this.

Commodity == no invesment is a boken arguments. Everyday Oil, gold and other commodities are traded. And there is many inovations, from paper gold, to high frequency trading. If something is a commodity you have a incentive close to infinity to inovate. That's why HFT is so popular. Then it trickles down to ISP like it trickle down to NASDAQ when the first move from paper to a computer trading.

You might know SigFox a new kind of ISP who provide low speed internet for connected devices. I don't see how net neutrality block them.

Net Neutrality makes it illegal to discriminate between real-time remote surgery and 8K movie streaming, both of which have completely different latency requirements.

I don't see any except:

- Surveilance

- Censorship

- Control

- Data business: Selling your life won't be reserved for the giants, but your local ISP will also be able to profit from that.

I do not say that any of those reasons are good or that I support them (as I'm completely opposed to them) but those are still "valid" reasons. Unethical and outright illegal but valid.

But none of them are good... Because I just didn't grasp any positive stuff that could come out of that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com