Hacker News Reader

Comment by websitescenes | Hacker News Reader

This is horrible. Being a developer, I make money off building fast web based applications. It sucks because the fast part is now out of my control. I can write the best code ever and it will run slow unless I pay for provider preference. This will cost small companies dearly and rewards large ones unfairly. Why must our courts and political system line the pockets of the already rich? Now is the time to aid and promote innovation not stunt and slow it.

View on HN

It's like indirectly saying the provider can charge for any content they want. You don't pay, then they won't traffic it. It's like censorship, protectionism and a bunch of other old world BS rolled into one. I'm livid.

You make money building web based applications that rely entirely on someone else's very expensive communications networks. Their networks have value without your applications, but your applications have no value without their networks. Why shouldn't they be able to dictate whatever terms they want? Why should the government intervene to artificially give you more leverage?

I already pay to use the networks. I pay monthly, and very dearly. Why should I pay again? Isn't traffic just traffic? Why must it be differentiated?

A first class ticket on an airplane costs a lot more than a coach seat. Lot's of similar services have different prices.

Well, to keep it in the analogy, this is what the world without nn sounds like - "I bought a economy ticket but I am reaching lot late than the one who bought a coach ticket." It's not that I am getting a tight seat or shitty service. I am reaching late to my destination. That means eventually everyone would have to pay more depending on the whim of the carrier.

Express service on Amtrak costs more than the slower service.

It's not the whim of the carrier. It's what the carrier can negotiate. Why should the US Gov't be part of that negotiation?

But if I don't mind arriving later to pay less for a ticket, why should I be prevented by the State from doing so?

The issue isn't the speed, it's what this arrangement can lead to. I believe the inherent right to information supersedes the wants of a few corporations. What we are really talking about is potentially losing access to valuable information. To me the internet is a public domain and limiting traffic like this is the equivalent of limiting speech.

But the internet is not a public domain; most of the infrastructure was built and paid by private actors.

If society considers it a real priority, should an actual public ISP be built, instead of forcing rules onto others'?

Public ISP would be a great idea. After all it is just a utility.

First class and coach still arrive at the same time though. That isn't the case with different levels of traffic.

Typically because they want to avoid having legal responsibility for the traffic crossing their network. Otherwise, they would be legally complicit in all the kiddie porn in the world. Avoiding that means they have to at least pretend not to be inspecting every packet that traverses their wires.

That's an interesting question. Is FedEx or UPS prevented from having special arrangements with particular shippers? USPS has a special agreement with Amazon for Sunday delivery.

Actually, their networks have no value without access to applications.

There was a time when these online companies had to pay other companies to develop applications for their networks. Now they get them for free and want to charge the companies on top of that.

Maybe Facebook's new business model could be charging $$ for "access to their pipes" from ISPs.

> Actually, their networks have no value without access to applications.

Sure, but applications are easier and cheaper to build than pipes. That's the nature of such systems. The step in the chain that's hardest to build with the greatest capital expensive required will have the least competition and thus make most of the profits.

Maybe that should be FB's model. Maybe they could negotiate that with the ISPs. Or maybe not.

Why should the US gov't be involved in this business negotiation between two companies?

The gov't should be involved, when those negotiations could potentially form cartels to the detriment of the majority of the population.

Being a developer you should really know the difference between "running speed", "network speed", and that total perceived speed has never been under your complete control. end user machines vary in power, end users have various latency and throughputs, networks get congested, etc.

But you are right, an internet without net-neutrality sucks balls.

I know, but now we can't even manipulate those things for better performance. You can have the best server, network and code but it won't matter if the provider doesn't give you preference. That's the issue. Takes what little control we have, as developers, away.

In fact, their proposal is that you'll have even more control. Just get a signed contract and they will bump your traffic on top of the rest of the peasants.

Given the state of the US telecom market (obsolete infrastructure, lackluster innovation, record profits) do you think that the extra money they get from you will go towards infrastructure or fat pockets?

"Create the sickness, sell the cure" is the business model I see being most profitable in this scenario. The contract you negotiate will be to avoid throttling, not to access speeds that would be unavailable in a parallel universe with net neutrality. Choice != control when someone else writes the rules.

I love this comment. Right on

This was needlessly pedantic. We all know what's within our control, and never accounted for a greedy carrier to choke the pipes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com