
Ask HN: Is net neutrality overblown? - krausejj
I understand the basics around net neutrality and was disappointed to see the rollback, but I was also surprised at how vehement the reaction was from the tech community.<p>My read of the issue was that:<p>- This will be easy to fix when Trump is replaced<p>- Comcast would be unwise to radically change the status quo when things will likely be &quot;reverted again&quot; in 3 years<p>- Internet companies (and techies) will call out bad behavior on the part of broadband providers if it occurs in practice<p>- This is a nuanced issue; regulating monopolies and utilities isn&#x27;t easy<p>Basically, I see this as a temporary reversion, unlikely to have longer term effects. Yet the outrage is enormous.<p>I&#x27;m surprised that this issue causes such outrage when I see bigger issues that could arguably cause much worse effects - like the essential dismantling of the EPA and environmental protections, which could cause a &quot;tipping point&quot; in climate change which we may <i>not</i> be able to revert and which will have worldwide consequences. Where is the outrage about that?
======
JoshCole
The outrage is enormous because the public comment period involved massive
identity theft and fake comments. The position of the corruption of the
comments matched the minority position. That position was echoed in the FCC.
Then the guy goes on to crack jokes about how he is doing it for Verizon.
Literally cracks jokes. On a stage. In front of an audience. Like corruption
is now comedy.

~~~
justboxing
> Like corruption is now comedy

Yes, sad but true. The President set the precedence.

~~~
SturgeonsLaw
While Trump is a new level of overt, blatant corruption, joking about it is
not his invention. Anyone remember Bush joking at the Press Correspondent's
Dinner about those pesky missing WMDs?

[https://youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA](https://youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA)

------
justacat
I'm not really qualified to speak on this, but the most annoying part about
this is it seems like a new discussion every 6 months. It's like asking your
roommate to not set fire to the kitchen, but every half hour you have to go
stop them from doing it... at some point it almost feels easier to just have
the kitchen on fire than to continually worry about the kitchen being on fire.

I assume that I'm not alone in this feeling.

~~~
forgot-my-pw
One solution is to kick out your roommate. The other solution is to fireproof
your whole kitchen (encrypt the whole web for start).

~~~
justboxing
Yet another solution is to have a through vetting process so you don't bring
this kind of roommate into your home and kitchen in the 1st place.

~~~
forgot-my-pw
But what if you don't have a choice and the building manager just appoints
your roommate. We need to kick out the building manager.

~~~
droidist2
But the building manager is elected by a relatively small percentage of
tenants who live in buildings that just happen to have a roughly even balance
of Republicans and Democrats.

------
TamDenholm
Like anything, things like this can have the potential to be the first step is
a very slippery slope that erodes what makes the internet great.

The one positive i can see about this is that it might make the general public
more aware of what net neutrality is, and hopefully thus reverse this and put
in a strong law bolstering it.

I also think that the way that Trump has acted in such a radical manner during
his presidency ensures the next guy in the chair will hopefully be the
opposite, but then, i really thought Trump becoming President in the first
place was extremely unlikely.

------
wwweston
Let's imagine that some form of shaking down service/content providers in
order to achieve certain speeds/priorities becomes some established part of
the landscape before the FCC or Congress changes hands again.

If, when that happens, the decision is made that this is not an acceptable
state of affairs, it will then look and feel to the ISPs like not a
_potential_ way of extracting rent, but a _lost_ revenue stream. They'll yell
loudly about lost revenue stream and tell everybody how they will have to
charge consumers more in order to make up for it. They'll shout about how the
government is taxing the internet. They'll go to court and see if the lost
revenue gives them a better case under the law.

And because it'll be the status quo -- but one in which most of the rents
they're extracting are invisible to consumers -- they'll be _more_ successful
at persuading people than they already have been.

------
TekMol
I wonder if it will have an impact at all.

They say big websites will pay for fast delivery and small websites will have
their data delivered slower.

I have a small website. I already pay for bandwith. What will change? Will I
be charged more for fast bandwith?

~~~
rbjorklin
That’s what most people fear right now. It would potentially make it harder
for new companies to compete with giants as they will not be able to pay the
premium required to provide an equally fast service.

~~~
TekMol
But how is that different to any other resource? In the same vein you could
say new companies cannot pay the premium for fast servers, big databases,
expensive marketing, top talent...

~~~
hungerstrike
So, it sounds like your argument is that because life sucks for new companies
in some ways, it's OK if we make it suck for them in all ways.

Should the same go for people? Are you looking forward to possibly seeing ISPs
nickel-and-dime you to death, e.g. with "packaged internets" products that
limit the sites you can visit based on how much you pay? -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15934044](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15934044)

~~~
icodestuff
I don't believe we'll actually see it on wireline internet service. And it's
already legal on mobile in the US, but we don't see it because it becomes more
uneconomical as connection speed gets faster.

------
acekingqueen
No.

Allowing ISPs to charge customers more for the same service is not overblown.
Basically it boils down to a trust issue, like the React World debacle, except
these ISPs have already had horrible breaches of that trust.

> \- This will be easy to fix when Trump is replaced

This has much less to do with the president and much more to do with corporate
bribes. See here: [https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-
isp...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-
browsing-privacy-fire-sale) Please note that there are no limits on how many
terms Congress members may seve and that voting turn-out for non-presidential
elections is quite low.

> \- Comcast would be unwise to radically change the status quo when things
> will likely be "reverted again" in 3 years

Incorrect on both fronts -

ISPs stand to acquire direct profit for no additional cost, basically free
money. This is because many ISPs have been caught throttling already, which
means that they already have that technology built and ready to go.

Comcast specifically already has many technologies they can turn on and off as
quickly as a phone call to change your service plan.

> \- Internet companies (and techies) will call out bad behavior on the part
> of broadband providers if it occurs in practice

Sure, but with far less reach and effectiveness and an eventual decade-long
tie up in courts. It's really less than a wrist slap to these large ISPs

> \- This is a nuanced issue; regulating monopolies and utilities isn't easy

It's not nuanced, but yes, regulating companies and utilities isn't easy. But
I just don't see how giving them permission to charge customers more money for
the same service is going to help any of these mentioned issues.

This is a perfect example of misinformation used to confuse and pacify the
masses - see how none of these arguments are related?

You have to understand that right now these ISPs have a near complete monopoly
over most areas and have relaxed to the point that other companies, such as
Google Fiber, can offer x100 times the speed at half the price or less.

------
0x4f3759df
>> This will be easy to fix when Trump is replaced

I think it will be entrenched by then. Wasn't it narrowly defeated under Obama
(remember when all the sites went black at once)?

Serious (perhaps dumb) question, can the end of NN really be fixed with
encryption?

My intuition says no, because China seems really good at blocking everything

~~~
acekingqueen
I also think it will be entrenched by then.

> Serious (perhaps dumb) question, can the end of NN really be fixed with
> encryption?

I have some hope for a decentralized private internet like this one
[https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/15/pied-pipers-
decentralized-...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/15/pied-pipers-
decentralized-internet-is-planned-for-dubai-courtesy-of-startup-moeco/) but I
would see it as more of an enthusiast's space as this internet wouldn't be
able to compete with the size of the current internet.

~~~
0x4f3759df
Speaking of decentralized (but not private), I recently learned about some EOS
'coin'... Brock Pierce states he's raised multiple billions to deliver a high
speed ETH competitor...

I find everything about it hard to believe (I own no EOS), but I'm watching it
with much curiosity

~~~
acekingqueen
I'm not surprised he's raised millions. (1) One of the best/easiest/most
guaranteed places to make money is by investing in money/stocks/etc. ("You
have to have money to make money") And (2) Actually, startup funders have a
surprising amount of cash and they'll throw it on any horse that looks to win
the race. From a civilian and from a startuper's perspective, gaining startup
funding is like winning the lottery but from the other side of the table,
really, it's just another investment, and they are looking to secure a healthy
profit.

IMO I feel that the crypotcurrency market reached its saturation point a long
time ago and that while technological advances are nice and new competitors
are always healthy, the winners of this game have been determined a long time
ago and will remain so as there continue to be new cryptocurrencies to the
point of super-saturation.

------
sua_3000
The internet is seen by many to be a vehicle of freedom of speech, and even a
basic human right. The outcry on NN is likely an pushback on the principle
that it sets a dangerous precedent of privatizing a public service.

------
michaelbrave
Truthfully I'm outraged about a lot of things lately, but the reason I care so
much about net neutrality is because for me it's become nearly synonymous with
freedom of speech. News organizations barely print newspapers anymore it's all
online, magazines likewise. If you allow for the blocking or throttling(which
kills it nearly the same) of information it creates a potential method of
abuse.

I believe that a democratic society, even a democratic republic such as ours
will lose the voice of the people when we lose net neutrality. I'm not sure
democracy can survive without a freedom of speech that can be heard.

This is the front lines of our defense for democracy. Other issues are
important sure but I have little faith in our ability to solve them if this is
broken. So much of our government is already broken, without the means to
communicate, to spread information and to let our voices be heard, it can only
get worse.

I think the ISP's won't act out too strongly too soon, as there would be riots
and also there is a lawsuit to see if the fcc was even allowed to do what it
did, I think they will wait to see the courts ruling, and if it goes in their
favor then the big changes will come.

------
simplify
The "outrage" is the people making their voice known. If there were no outrage
at all, our politicians would take that as us not caring, and thus have the
freedom to listen to the big companies without repercussions. Now that we've
made it clear where our stance is, both politicians and big companies will be
more cautious about their actions.

> I'm surprised that this issue causes such outrage when I see bigger issues
> that could arguably cause much worse effects

This happens all the time; it's an unfortunate state of the world. But we
shouldn't disregard important issues just because there are even bigger
issues.

------
pathartl
The problem is this has become a battle of laws. Before it was just FCC
regulations, however these anti neutrality regulations that were voted on
yesterday are being pushed to become law. It adds more hurdles to the process.

------
bvinc
Yes it's overblown. You can expect that to happen with any political argument.

But I still haven't been able to find any convincing argument to give these
monopolies the ability to make people's internet worse in subtle ways. I
expect the actual effects of getting rid of net neutrality will be buffering
problems, more expensive internet services like Netflix, and small annoyances
that won't bother non-technical people.

------
yesenadam
I'm new here; I was expecting to see a page full of comments addressing your
final question, "Where is the outrage about that?" But no-one mentioned it at
all! Well, I guess that answers that question. (Although raises a few more.)

------
sergiotapia
Yes.

You'll see supporters clamor that "internet access is a human right", yet
unironically defend that speech should be regulated on the internet.

~~~
Joakal
Any links to who wants both?

Sounds like apples and oranges, because I can understand some may want high-
speed free/low-cost internet for all while advocating penalties to those that
hurl hate speech online.

------
Cyberdog
Yes. So tired of hearing about this story as if it were the end of the world
in tech circles - ones that would normally be opposed to increased regulation
of the internet.

I predict this whole thing will be a nothingburger, and in a year there will
be no major ISPs seriously trying to sell "Netflix/YouTube packages" or the
like. If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow, but I seriously doubt it.

~~~
jbob2000
You are mistaken. These types of packages are already visible around the
world, here's one from Indonesia:
[https://imgur.com/gallery/nKZ2yeq](https://imgur.com/gallery/nKZ2yeq)

The business model is already proven, the American ISPs just need to copy it.
It would not surprise me to know that they have systems and plans hiding in
the wings.

~~~
Cyberdog
Hypotheticals do not make me mistaken.

------
patrickg_zill
After Google, Facebook, Twitter et al un-personed people for their beliefs, my
trust in them declined a great deal.

Thus when these same corporations yelled about "Net Neutrality" I was left
wondering what the real deal was.

------
Madmallard
The only regulation we need on the internet is congestion control. The
culprits of this issue so far aside malicious botnets DDOSing seem to be
corporations like Comcast and Spectrum overselling their nodes and causing an
intermittent denial of service to everyone using it. Maybe multiregional
corporations do some of it themselves as well.

There should not ever be restriction to access or price for data.

~~~
slovette
While maybe a bit poorly described, this isn’t wrong and touches on the
underlying truth. The #1 complaint everyone has on their ‘internet’ is
directly related to contention ratio and it’s associated monetary value (which
often is not understood by consumers).

I run a regional ISP (CTO). Boiled down, we compete almost solely on network
contention ratio and the resulting price per Mbps to the consumer.

