
Ask HN: Real reason against net neutrality? - Ceezy
I&#x27;m curious to know what are valid reasons against net net neutrality
======
brudgers
{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.

~~~
Ceezy
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...?

------
gallerdude
(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.

~~~
atmosx
> Answer: it's not really profitable.

Do you have evidence supporting this claim?

------
mkempe
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.

------
briandear
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.

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

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

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

~~~
yesenadam
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.

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

------
Artemix
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.

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

