
Startups Seek Tech Solution to Net Neutrality Repeal - Vannatter
https://www.wsj.com/articles/startups-seek-tech-solution-to-net-neutrality-repeal-1514383200
======
polskibus
Why are startups afraid? Shouldn't the biggest internet/cloud companies be
worried first? They are going to be taxed most (esp. Netflix). Or maybe I'm
missing something in the big picture?

~~~
mbesto
Netflix potentially has something to gain, because they'll likely strike a
deal with the ISPs to put content physically/technically closer to consumers
(which means better quality at quicker rates).

~~~
paxy
Netflix does this already, both via direct dedicated lines from their CDN to
ISPs and content boxes in ISPs' own data centers. I don't think it can be
considered a net neutrality violation since the concept of "neutrality" is
still a consumer facing one and doesn't really apply for the massive internet
infrastructure between ISPs and large company data centers, CDNs etc.

------
isaac_is_goat
So looks like they were right when they said it would encourage innovation. Go
figure.

~~~
Chaebixi
Some "innovation" is a waste of resources. Specifically, the innovation
required to work around broken policy.

~~~
turc1656
Or fixing an already solved problem. Using a VPN addresses basically
everything they are trying to fix.

~~~
runako
ISPs can trivially prioritize content from preferred providers while
throttling all other traffic, including VPN traffic.

VPNs do not solve this problem.

~~~
turc1656
yeah but all your internet traffic would then be throttled. Not just certain
services. Using a VPN essentially takes away everything from them and reduces
their only tool to a hammer and forcing everything to look like a nail. There
is no granularity. All your traffic goes to one location. They can't see what
it is or what the final endpoint is because of encryption. So they can't use
it to build a profile/data on you to sell. They can't inject ads into HTML or
block services that compete with their own, or even grant privileged speeds to
approved or preferred services. They basically are forced into a Shakespearean
"to throttle or not to throttle" binary choice.

~~~
runako
That's true, but in practice most consumers wouldn't notice. That's because
the whitelisted services would most likely include those data-hungry services
used most frequently by consumers: Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Facebook, etc.
which are operated by big providers. This was how Comcast operated in ca.
2013.

The bet is ISPs would be very comfortable throttling traffic, as long as
whitelisted services were not affected. (They see this as a revenue generator,
because they can sell fast-lane access to companies who don't want their
customers' bandwidth throttled.) ISPs that go this route will likely offer a
(consumer-paid) option to allow VPN traffic to use the fast lane.

------
pjdemers
The ISPs will offer full NN access for $100 a month extra. If some startup
comes along with similar service, the ISPs will cut the NN price to $50 per
month extra until the startup is gone. That is the whole point of repealing
NN: ISPs want to be able to offer premium services at premium prices.

------
bigtex
How did Netflix survive pre 2015? What about Spotify?

~~~
SmirkingRevenge
They survived because the ISPs faced strong regulatory backlash if they made
too many anti competitive moves.

Trump and Pat have removed those threats.

------
brndnmtthws
VPNs for everyone?

~~~
turc1656
Yep. Beat me to making the comment. This is already a solved problem.

A VPN solves this problem quite well. Only exception I see is overall
bandwidth usage. They'll obviously still see the total amount of traffic going
across their lines and may throttle that, but that would apply to everyone
equally, which I don't have an issue with. Since they won't be able to see the
traffic due to encryption, they can't inhibit/block certain sites or services.
Nor can they inject ads or anything else into the HTML responses. They would
also be essentially blind and unable to build a profile about you to sell.

~~~
KajMagnus
Can't they (the ISPs) just block or charge extra for VPN traffic? I've read
that China detects and blocks VPN traffic.

~~~
turc1656
they can see encrypted traffic and that it is being sent to an IP associated
with VPN services without too much difficulty, but they won't have granular
control/access over your data/bandwidth. Meaning they won't be able to
prioritize some of the sites/services you access over others because of the
encryption. they need to throttle everything or nothing. And they won't be
able to see any of your traffic or the sites you visit whatsoever.

------
illumin8
Anyone know how to read the article behind the paywall?

~~~
glaberficken
click "web" under the title here on HN

that will take you to a google search

click trough there and you wont be "paywalled"

~~~
KajMagnus
Doesn't work for me :-/ it's still paywalled although I access it via the
'web' link and search results page. I tested disabling Javascript too, didn't
help.

------
Danihan
Isn't the solution just more ISP competition?

~~~
Chaebixi
That's easy to say, but there's the well-known last mine problem. How many
separate companies will be willing to run cabling to your home just to compete
bitterly with an incumbent? And even if that may happen in your neighborhood,
will it happen nationwide? What about rural areas where you're lucky to have
_one_ fast ISP?

~~~
nawitus
In other countries there are laws which force the cable owner to rent the last
mile to any ISP.

~~~
Chaebixi
I'd guess countries with that kind of sensible regulation also can manage net
neutrality regulations...

------
g09980
Startups existed just fine before 2015 (when the repealed regulation was
passed.) So why this now?

I loathe Comcast & AT&T as much as any other person, but it seems like this
issue has been sensationalized/editorialized so that any sensible commentary
is drowned out.

Edit: Well, this is an unpopular opinion (-2 points currently).

~~~
decebalus1
Stop spreading disinformation, the regulations from 2015 and reclassification
is just legislative juggling. Net neutrality was an issue from way before that
(1). See numerous violations (2) and try to assert what changes does a startup
have if they are in direct competition with a service which the ISP offers
along with internet.

(1)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States)

(2) [https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-
vio...](https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-
brief-history)

People don't downvote you because they don't agree with your 'opinion', it's
just that you're wrong. What you wrote is not an opinion, it's just
disinformation.

~~~
g09980
That source (Free Press) is an advocacy organization, so it by definition
presents one side of a story. The pros without the cons, or something.

I'm in the boat where I trust companies more than I trust the government, and
believe that the original NN regulation was a path for the government to start
actively censoring the internet, China-style.

Want to see more debate (even if devil's advocate) along these lines instead
of "they are killing startups" and "they are taking away our free YouTube."

~~~
decebalus1
> That source (Free Press) is an advocacy organization, so it by definition
> presents one side of a story. The pros without the cons, or something.

That doesn't make it wrong. You can research each instance and find it
documented in other sources too.

> I'm in the boat where I trust companies more than I trust the government,
> and believe that the original NN regulation was a path for the government to
> start actively censoring the internet, China-style.

This belief is flawed or misdirected for the following reasons:

1\. Revolving door policy, lobbying and elimination of PAC contribution limits
for corporations has unified the two and for all intents and purposes there is
absolutely no difference between government and companies when it comes to who
should be trusted.

2\. the government doesn't need to censor the internet anymore. For years,
deliberate propaganda using sockpuppets has been proven way more effective in
influencing public opinion than straight-up censorship, especially in western
societies. Also, if you're looking at censorship, look no further than
companies with no backbone but with a lot of greed, not the government (1) (2)
(3).

3\. Censorship is a different matter. I hate it when people bring it up to
oppose NN as it diverts the conversation. NN is about regulating a public
utility and limiting monolopies, not necessarily free speech or free internet
(whatever the hell that means as I don't know anymore after the republicans
use it to define exactly the opposite of what the common understanding would
be). Regardless of regulation, referring to censorship, look at Comcast
passing the buck (4): "We do not and will not block, throttle, or discriminate
against lawful content. " Who decides what's lawful or not? If the Government
deems far-left/right or any other website opposing something which the
government/military-industrial complex deems as unlawful, how does that work
with\without net neutrality rules? Just look at what happened to Wikileaks.
Overnight, censorship and corporate economic boycott was in full effect,
regardless of laws or regulations.

(1)
[http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/24/technology/business/cloudfla...](http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/24/technology/business/cloudflare-
ceo-interview-daily-stormer/index.html)

(2) [http://blog.dilbert.com/2016/10/03/the-week-i-became-a-
targe...](http://blog.dilbert.com/2016/10/03/the-week-i-became-a-target/)

(3) [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/opinion/sunday/the-
blog-t...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/opinion/sunday/the-blog-that-
disappeared.html)

(4)
[https://twitter.com/comcast/status/933394263689351175?lang=e...](https://twitter.com/comcast/status/933394263689351175?lang=en)

~~~
decebalus1
I forgot one thing. I would definitely be in favor of no regulation what-so-
ever on the internet, but only in the context of a healthy ISP ecosystem. I
get where you're coming from with your opinion, I really do.

What I'm not in favor is giving an existing oligopoly (which came to power
mainly due to point 1. in my previous post) an unbalanced ratio of power over
its relationship with the consumer (I include here end-users such as us and
small/large companies which leverage internet access to sell their services)
on the premise of the 'free market' and the promise that corporations won't do
any harm. I don't trust that at all.

Historically, Verizon and AT&T haven't lived up even to their commitments
which were made when corporate mergers were approved. Why should I trust that
they will not do unethical market practices with the nuclear bomb that the
republicans put in their hands? Why won't the legislature eliminate FBAR
reporting for individuals making less than $1M/yr on the promise that I won't
move all my money out of the country to avoid taxes? I promise I won't do it
but if you catch me, there will be no legal repercussions, right? I would call
this the 'Financial freedom bill, reverting the draconian fiscal regulations
for the common man'

Me, particularly, I was stuck with Comcast as my only option for about 5 years
(couple years ago, now I have 2 ISP to choose from). They jacked up my prices
for no reason and there was nothing I could do. Absolutely nothing. Why should
I trust them now to NOT throttle my content or make me pay extra now that they
legally can do whatever they want? Doing so will be cataloged as a 'free
market' practice now and if I don't agree, I should change carriers, right?
Change it to the other member of the same lobbying group which made this
deregulation possible which will in turn throttle content.

