
Join the Battle for Net Neutrality - rayalez
https://www.battleforthenet.com/
======
ivarious
[https://i.imgur.com/DhL4vKq.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/DhL4vKq.jpg)

Indonesia doesn't have net neutrality laws. That's the screenshot of Indosat
(Internet Provider)'s app where you can buy data plan from. But as you can
see, they sell data plans ala carte, per application in this case. If your
favorite app is not there, you're shit out of luck and have to use the more
expensive universal data plan.

Not only that, last year, the biggest home internet provider (Indihome), and
the biggest mobile internet provider (Telkomsel), which both are owned by the
government, banned Netflix under the guise of "Netflix hasn't rated nor
censored their contents based on our country's rules". The truth is that both
of them are selling their own movie streaming service. Indihome has
partnership with iflix, and Telkomsel with HOOQ.

Now, if you buy new prepaid number from Telkomsel, this is the kind of data
fuckery you will get.
[https://i.imgur.com/wb6gMBo.png](https://i.imgur.com/wb6gMBo.png)

~~~
mediocrejoker
my first question would be how the prices of the unlimited plan compares to
the regular plans of other ISPs.

In other words, are these ‘walled garden’ plans aimed towards people who would
otherwise buy a regular data plan or are they aimed at people for whom the
choice is a walled plan or no plan.

~~~
donkeyd
The screenshot in OP's post and this[0] comment, make me think that cheap
plans will mostly allow you to use apps/sites where the companies pay the ISP.
These will be things like YouTube and Netflix, who need visitors for profit.
Things that will be blocked by default are sites like HN, company websites,
personal websites and anything else that isn't a huge company. So in the
cheaper plans, the one being visited pays, in the expensive one, the one who
visits pays.

In the end, it's just another revenue stream where, if they play it right, the
consumer still pays the same, but the content providers also start paying.
This means more money from the same bandwidth.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15757190](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15757190)

~~~
mediocrejoker
Do they actually block any of those things? What makes you think they would
start blocking HN?

~~~
gervase
My understanding is that it's not that they're "blocked", it's that "you only
can access what you pay for", which in this case is only those specific sites
for which you pay to access. In other words, they don't "block" HN, they
_only_ provide access to Facebook, for example.

------
narrator
China does not have net neutrality. Almost everything coming into the country
from outside is utterly filtered to hell and back. They do have a vibrant tech
economy though. So they have their own Google (Baidu). They have their own
Twitter (Weibo), WhatsApp(WeChat), Amazon(Tao Bao). So in the future of no
net-neutrality, we'll see ISPs being value-added resellers of their own
regionally partitioned versions of these services, probably developed by
various ISVs. It will be a bit like the BBS days I imagine. It goes along with
the Trump political theme of anti-globalization.

~~~
baobrain
Comparing China to the US is a false equivalency.

For one, Chinese ISPs are state owned (China Telecom, China Mobile, China
Unicom, Great Wall). They do not have much of a profit motive outside the
typical corruption of people at the top. Even with these state owned ISPs
there are multiple choices for each address as these companies share
infrastructure. The sharing of infrastructure in itself is similar to local
loop unbundling, which does not exist in the US.

Another thing is that the tech community thrives at the behest of the
government. Every time something happens it is generally due to changes in
party policy that shift favor between companies.

Partitioning services is also not necessarily good. For example, large
American ISPs generally have regional monopolies if not duopolies. They also
own TV channels and movie studios. What is to prevent them from offering
packages of their own services that are zero rated while charging extra for
others (say, Steam or a new streaming service)?

~~~
bjt2n3904
Yeah... China's restrictive internet wouldn't be saved by "Net Neutrality".
One of the foundational principles of the PRC is regulating _what can be
said_. The medium is irrelevant.

I'll note that the FCC also regulates what can be said. Anyone remember when
they investigated Stephen Colbert for his remarks on Trump?

------
caburlingame
Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con
argument.

~~~
thomastjeffery
There really isn't a sound argument against net neutrality.

Many do argue that the FCC shouldn't have the authority to regulate the
internet, and often argue that idea to subtly change the subject.

If someone argues to abolish something, they should either argue in favor of a
replacement, or argue that that thing should not exist at all. Unfortunately,
I haven't heard even a flawed version of either argument.

Another faux argument I hear is the classic, "I am libertarian, and therefore
must be against regulation of _any_ form, and you can't change my mind."
Obviously, that isn't an argument at all, and abusing libertarian ideology to
look like an argument like that is seriously disappointing to any serious
thoughtful libertarian, such as myself. This problem isn't specific to
libertarianism either, but it is very popular in that community.

The core tenet to every _position_ (not argument) I have heard against net
neutrality is simply a position against regulation. The problem is that in the
United States, we _need_ to regulate ISPs, for several reasons:

1\. There isn't enough competition: There are 6 ISPs in the US that control
the majority of the market, and the majority of Americans are left with only
one choice for >20mbit internet.

2\. Net Neutrality is necessary to cultivate a free market of businesses that
use the internet. Without net neutrality, the already centralized market of
ISPs would cultivate centralized markets for each type of business that uses
the internet.

 _TL;DR_ It is totally reasonable to be wary of regulation, or of the
implementation of regulation. It may even be reasonable to consider net
neutrality to be worthless or unnecessary in a truly free market, that has
real competition between ISPs, but that isn't today's reality, so we would
need to tackle that problem _first_.

~~~
bko
There are arguments against net neutrality. Check out the NoNetNeutrality
subreddit if you're curious [0].

The most convincing argument IMO is that it hurts people's internet access by
sniffling innovation. It happened in India when Facebook tried to provide free
"basic internet" access to poor rural Indians [1]. It was blocked on the
ground of net neutrality since although it would provide access to very useful
sites (weather, news, wikipedia, and yes, facebook), it was a sort of walled
garden. Considering the alternative of no internet access or limited internet
access, I think most people would agree that basic internet could have been a
life saver to these people.

The other strong argument against net neutrality is that it's a trojan horse
for internet regulation. When you have a legal framework for a regulatory body
to tell and ISP you have to provide equal aaccess to "legitimate" content, I
don't think it's too much of a stretch to consider that the natural extension
of this is to tell the ISP they must block all "illegitimate" content

[0]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/NoNetNeutrality/](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoNetNeutrality/)

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

~~~
goda90
The counter to free basics is why didn't Facebook just provide free full
internet with heavy branding and advertising to encourage Facebook use? Did
they have some Indian competitor they were scared of? I have a hard time
seeing how it would be that much more expensive.

~~~
bluGill
Facebook branding on their internet would be against net neutrality: facebook
would then be changing other websites.

~~~
thomastjeffery
I think they mean heavy branding in person to customers.

------
ryandrake
The site is technically pretty neat, but honestly does anyone think a bunch of
low-effort automated calls to a Congressperson's voicemail is really going to
change anything? The commoners' opinions about Net Neutrality (or any issue,
really) is pretty low on the list of things our so-called representatives are
worried about.

~~~
snowmaker
Calls from real people to Congress do have a real impact. Calls from a site
just like this are what killed the SOPA/PIPA legislation.

~~~
lucb1e
Source?

------
amelius
Apparently, it's quite difficult to maintain net neutrality, yet its
advantages to the average citizen seem enormous.

Therefore, shouldn't we fix something else instead? Like the way these laws
are established?

~~~
mikeash
"Fix something else" is right on, but "instead" is highly problematic. We can
try to fix multiple things.

The root of this problem and many others is that Congress and the executive
are corrupt and have no particular interest in doing their job properly. Much
of that stems from a bad electoral system. Fixing that is hugely important and
would be highly useful. However, that fix is likely to take a long time.
Certainly there's no hope of fixing it by December 14th.

~~~
amelius
Yeah, but after fixing the "smaller" issues, we tend to forget about the
bigger issues. Also, we lose leverage, and the problem quickly becomes
abstract.

~~~
mikeash
I don't see this happening at all. The smaller issues help people understand
the importance of the bigger ones.

------
imh
[https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/21/fcc-net-
neutrality...](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/21/fcc-net-neutrality-
blocking-states-183468)

Not only are they removing federal rules, they want to prevent states from
making their own rules. That seems an extra special kind of awful. "Big
Government is overstepping its bounds with regulation, so we're going to have
big government step in and prevent local governments from making their own
choices."

------
Clanan
I'm on the fence regarding this issue. The scaremongering on both sides is
absolutely ridiculous. The planned order hasn't even been released! On the one
hand, I can see why monopolistic powers in the hands of ISPs would be bad, but
I like that the order would restore "police" powers to the FTC instead of the
FCC, and I can't blame ISPs for wanting a piece of the $ pie. And it's not
like the internet was a horrible wasteland until 2015.

But then again, Pai plan proponents keep saying this will spawn more
innovation and improve utilities. That sounds pretty dubious and I haven't
seen much proof. I don't recall any big innovation suddenly being stifled in
2015.

In my perfect world, the regulatory power would go back to the FTC but it
would at the same time release a plan for opening up internet utility access
so small players can compete with the big ones.

~~~
neuterlize
> The planned order hasn't even been released!

Be that time it'll probably be too late.

> On the one hand, I can see why monopolistic powers in the hands of ISPs
> would be bad, but I like that the order would restore "police" powers to the
> FTC instead of the FCC,

The FTC is not the correct body to "police" broadband.

> and I can't blame ISPs for wanting a piece of the $ pie.

I can. They are already getting paid. They should not be able to go back for
seconds.

> And it's not like the internet was a horrible wasteland until 2015.

That's because network neutrality was the default state before. It's only now
that is becoming feasible both from a technical and business perspective to
violate network neutrality.

> But then again, Pai plan proponents keep saying this will spawn more
> innovation and improve utilities. That sounds pretty dubious and I haven't
> seen much proof. I don't recall any big innovation suddenly being stifled in
> 2015

Yeah, that's just a load of bullshit. CEOs have gone on record that NN will
not affect business or investments.

> In my perfect world, the regulatory power would go back to the FTC but it
> would at the same time release a plan for opening up internet utility access
> so small players can compete with the big ones.

Too bad we already had that, minus the FTC part. Fat chance of getting it
back.

------
fractalf
Every two three years we have to do the same fight over and over again? :/

~~~
Eupolemos
Well, not after you lose. I think this time is it.

However, it is "merely" a symptom of the US political system not being
sensitive to the citizens' wants and needs. Or no longer being a democracy by
modern standards, if you want to be dramatic.

~~~
kadenshep
>However, it is "merely" a symptom of the US political system not being
sensitive to the citizens' wants and needs.

No. Stop saying this. It completely muddies the water on what's actually going
on here. People DID vote for this. They voted for their reps. And they voted
for reps of a very particular political bent.

Elections have consequences.

The electorate chose this. Freely and willingly. The electorate being
completely unqualified to understand issues ranging from technology to
healthcare to economics isn't really a fault of the U.S. political system at
this point.

Stop giving the people that vote for these reps (and the President) free
passes and address the root issue. They have voted this way for decades and
will continue to do so and no amount of changing or tweaking the political
system is really going to have any noticeable effect on the policies they will
support. The U.S. political system is listening to the electorate. Stop
pretending it's not.

~~~
Eupolemos
> The electorate chose this. Freely and willingly.

I disagree with you.

In political systems that aren't effectively two party systems, parties that
listen to what the population wants and needs emerge and get their share of
the votes. These parties then get together and form a majority representing
these needs in many ways. This makes listening to the population a winning
strategy.

The US system is how much can you accommodate corporations held up against how
little can you listen to the population and still get away with it. In a two
party system, that is a lot.

I could write an example-scenario with two frozen pizza companies vs. 8 frozen
pizza companies and which choices you'll end up with for dinner, but I think
you get point.

It's called fair competition and America seems to have forgotten its benefits
for the general population, both in politics and in business.

Pointing out people as idiots is not a solution. Pushing for systems that
work, is.

~~~
kadenshep
>I disagree with you.

Okay. Well, you're going to have to provide practical examples on why decades
of testimony and support for various policies (or the reps that push them) is
somehow not a product of the electorate's own volition.

You have hypotheticals and a general model for what might alleviate the
support (or implicit support for these policies). But you fail to address what
I actually stated: the electorate IS voting for this. They have voted for
this. They will continue to vote for this. You provided no evidence to negate
this historical record. You provided an example of "two options vs many
options" which completely and utterly misses the point I'm making.

>Pointing out people as idiots is not a solution.

Your words, not mine. I called them unqualified. However you've brought to
mind a favorite quote that I'm going to modify:

"There are idiots in the market" -> "There are idiots in the electorate"

------
Pharylon
The battle is all but over, and Net Neutrality lost. Republicans control every
branch of the government.

~~~
ythn
I don't even understand how this became a bi-partisan issue. Everyone I know,
republican and democrat, are for NN. The only people that are against NN are
convinced it was introduced by Obama in order to "socialize the internet"

~~~
ikeboy
Do you know many economists? See [http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-
neutrality-ii](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii)

~~~
plandis
I’m ripping my hair out wanting to scream about monopolies to all of these
people.

~~~
ikeboy
Someone should probably tell the Nobel Prize winner Richard Thaler about
monopolies, he could use some education

------
djhworld
Can anyone in the US explain why the government/FCC is so eager to abandon net
netrality laws?

Was it demanded by the electorate? A promise in a manifesto or something?

I remember the topic of NN coming up a few years ago and was largely defeated
after public outcry - has public mood changed since then?

~~~
mLuby
TL;DR: US companies stand to benefit from reduced regulation.

This is a case where a few companies really want to be able to change their
pricing structures to increase profits, and consumers in general don't want
that but also aren't particularly involved. So there isn't a big public outcry
(except among HN readers <3) and these companies are lobbying the FCC hard to
make "business-friendly" changes. It's called concentrated benefits and
diffuse costs.

------
soheil
Is there a list of congressmen by state who are against Net Neutrality? It’d
Be helpful to put that up somewhere easily accessible with their twitter
handle etc.

Also anyone can shed some light exactly on how much money the telecom
companies paid in lobbying? Can we match that or double if it’s all just about
money? I’d be glad to pay a payment of up to 1/10th of my monthly income if
this is going to persuade law makers reject the lobbyists demands.

------
oldpond
Without net neutrality, the internet will become just another source of TV
where you only get to see what the advertising industry and the regulators
want you to see. At that point the phone in your pocket will become just a
tiny TV set, and cord-cutting will become internet-cutting.

------
zengid
If you'd like to make a public comment on the FCC's public forum (domain-link
courtesy of John Oliver):

www.gofccyourself.com

------
thisisit
Playing the devil's advocate here - Don't all big media companies rely on some
form of CDN providers who themselves have some form of deals and agreements
with ISPs or Internet exchange. Example - Netflix in India:

[https://www.medianama.com/2017/05/223-netflix-begins-
directl...](https://www.medianama.com/2017/05/223-netflix-begins-directly-
peering-large-internet-exchange-india/)

In which case how does this law change anything? And what effect this might
have on CDN providers?

~~~
joantune
No, no, no.

CDN is different than throttling your Internet.

A CDN is like having a local power generator in your neighborhood, throttling
your Internet is like charging your house more for electricity, because the
electrical company prefers your neighbor.

------
kpennell
Oakland reporting, Barbara Lee's box is full. Will try again soon.

------
ken47
For those who are anti net neutrality or "on the fence," if you are in tech,
keep in mind that the removal of nn will likely put downward pressure on your
compensation.

~~~
ghrifter
How?

------
openthito
Nepal also donot have net neutrality law . Ncell and NTC are biggest cellular
networks. They sell facebook plan at cheap rate and rest is comparatively more

------
LoonyBalloony
I browse voat because I want to see what conservative/trump supporters think
and I came upon this thread here:

[https://voat.co/v/technology/2253983](https://voat.co/v/technology/2253983)

I was wondering if you guys could address these guys concerns. We need
everyone on the same side. We all want a free internet. Appreciate the help.

~~~
wooter
good video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6txA3pI0xJI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6txA3pI0xJI)

 __short answer: __

These rules are 2 years old and did nothing good for the internet. the
solution is to dissolve municipal monopolies. they do this all the time -
everytime they corruptly assign a monopoly to provide a service like
electricity, water, etc.

The problem is too much government and the left just wants to pile on the
beaurocracy and centralize the decision making regarding the _global internet_
in washington. Stupid.

Why shouldn't a medical monitoring company negotiate peering and higher
guaranteed bandwidth so doctors can remotely with live data to ensure the
safety of critical patients? [hint: ALL companies do this, it is physically
impossible not to]

Because the government is scaring stupid people with the thought of higher
netflix prices to grab more control of the internet that they have been
__illegally surveiling __already. Meanwhile, they also scramble to add idiotic
things like netflix taxes because they are just too idiotic and greedy. Oh not
to mention the government 's backwards attempts to prosecute piracy and
weaken/criminalize encryption.

 __technical answer if you 're up for some reading: __

As an engineer, net neutrality is a totally misguided and unattainable.
Companies that provide things like realtime communication obviously need to
negotiate and guarantee lower latencies. Anyways, just like with labor and
healthcare, some people just want to pretend that internet service doesn 't
operate under economic laws. They're always looking for some savior/excuse to
abolish free enterprise like internet, automation, altruism, etc.

I like how reddit user /u/natermer puts part of it (link:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldandBlack/comments/6mviva/whats_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldandBlack/comments/6mviva/whats_the_proper_stance_on_net_neutrality/dk670sd/)
):

There are two major types of network traffic you tend to see on the internet.
One is a 'elephant' type bulk transfers. These are big files, bittorrent,
video streaming and such things. These types of things use a lot of the
available bandwidth and can cause transfers that last many minutes to many
hours. However they are latency sensitive.... It doesn't matter if it takes 1
or 10 or a 100 seconds for the packets to cross the internet just as long as
you can move a LOT of packets at the same time.

The other type of data transfer you see are things that are very latency
sensitive. Remote controlling of mechanics, remote monitoring, remote desktop,
video conferencing, gaming, VoIP, and other types of latency sensitive
protocols. These things use relatively little bandwidth compared to the
'elephants' but are extremely latency sensitive... meaning you want the
transfer to go as quick as possible, but don't really need to transfer that
much. The modern Internet works based on peering agreements. ISPs have
multiple connections with other ISPs. many times these connections are almost
ad-hoc as it depends on geography and other variables that makes some
connections 'less then ideal'. These connections vary in quality, performance,
latency, and cost.

If ISPs can route traffic based on protocol and provider then they can
possibly save significant amount of money and improve performance for their
customers. They can shuttle latency sensitive protocols over expensive links
and allow bulk transfers to use massive amounts of cheap bandwidth to reduce
their own and their customer's costs.

If you go 'full network neutrality' and treat each packet the same then you
can have your VoIP call stuck in a FIFO buffer queue behind your Xbox's game
download.. making it impossible to have phone calls.

For example: TCP/IP protocol is connection oriented and this is used for
critical connections and there is a ack/nack response/reply conversation going
on where clients validate and confirm packets. This means that every TCP/IP
transfer is a two-way street... even if you are downloading you still have to
upload some packets to confirm and continue the connection.

Bulk uploads from your home network can interfere with the acknowledgements
and cause massive latency spikes and other issues unless you have a router
that intellegently manages buffers and gives priority to different types of
packets. You have a very fast network connected to a very slow uplink and your
TCP/IP acks can get stuck behind a massive queue of bulk transfers.

This happens commonly when people are using bittorrent and they don't
understand why they get fast downloads, then it throttles back to almost
nothing, and then they get fast downloads again. This will continue in a saw-
like fashion where you see fast performance, then massive latency spikes, and
then slow performance, and then fast performance again.. repeating. Many
people assume that this is caused by ISP throttling when in fact it's their
own network equipment suffering from bad buffer/queue management. They will go
out and buy new home routers only to see the problem get worse because the
routers are as dumb as before, but now have even bigger queues and even more
memory to (mis)manage. (there are VERY effective ways to fix this, btw)

I could go on and on.

Also keep in mind that the modern internet works through things called
'Content Delivery Networks' or CDNs for short. Bulk transfer of files from one
side of the internet to the other side is expensive and high-latency. Co-
located datacenters for webservers and small/medium business installations
charge premium amounts for internet access and usage is metered on the server
side. So most popular websites depend on CDNs to cache content and distribute
it back out to the user in a way that is actually physically close to the user
on the internet.

This can dramatically lower costs, increase availability, and improve
performance and user experience.

One of the ways CDNs do this is by having private networks running in
parrallel to the public internet. Sometimes they are logical networks like
VPNs or they are entirely separate physical networks.

Youtube, for example, depends on Google's private Fiber network for content
delivery. When you are streaming videos Google uses as little as the public
internet as possible. They have connections as local to you as possible that
(ideally) connect directly to your ISP's network and streams data to you.

Other CDNs depend on collocated servers in the ISP's datacenter to cache data,
stream video, and other things. Thus if you take a very naive approach to
network neutrality and try to say 'all packets are treated as equal' you not
only possibly increase the costs for yourself and others, but also you destroy
the suitability for the internet to be used for low-latency protocols AND you
will do NOTHING to help start-ups be competitive with big names like Google.

~~~
CleaningWithMud
You're seeing this as a technical issue when it is in fact a legal one. In
Canada the telecommunications legislation states the principle well:

 _(2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a
telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly
discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person,
including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable
disadvantage._

You can still manage networks and employ CDN. But you can't arbitrarily block
content.

------
wavesounds
"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others,
or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and
crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring
those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of
oppression and resistance." \- Robert F Kennedy

------
sunnykgupta
While we are on the topic, may I bring up John Oliver's June 1 2014 episode.

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

tl;dw - For those who want to understand how closely the government is related
to those who benefit from NO net-neutrality.

------
thecombjelly
Why are we still making appeals to corrupt politicians? We might not control
the cables but we do control the content. Why don't we shut it down until we
get what is right? Why not another SOPA blackout and this time it doesn't stop
until net neutrality is safe?

~~~
myaso
Swartz is dead. Nobody to rally behind now, no real leaders. Online
communities are older and more mainstream and are getting ossified. Much more
brutal competition in the web space now, can't afford to voluntarily bleed +
content is no longer special if someone doesn't get their fix in 5 minutes now
they go somewhere else; ethics and values cost money and lots of people in
this field have neither now. Lots of people running around in tech that don't
share our views ever since 'tech' went mainstream around 2012/2013\. What
would a black out accomplish? The people in power don't give a fuck as far as
I can tell regardless of how much public outage can be generated. Maybe we
will finally get mesh networking out of this.

------
fyrstenberg
In the mean time, and in related news (media all quiet) - the "USA Liberty Act
of 2017" has passed meaning government is allowed to search our private data
without a warrant:

[https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-
bill/3989...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-
bill/3989/actions)

Some more details here: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/usa-liberty-
act-wont-f...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/usa-liberty-act-wont-fix-
whats-most-broken-nsa-internet-surveillance)

------
idibidiart
Why isn't Google fighting this? They have a backup plan?

~~~
kadenshep
Google doesn't need to care. They can out purchase speed tiers/entire ISP's to
make their services extremely favorable/speedy to use or just out right
prevent competition in certain areas. They own the biggest ad network in the
world. This will be in their favor.

Funny how libertarian mythology doesn't really hold up to even the most basic
of game theory applications.

~~~
idibidiart
Their biggest and most lucrative service is search. What if I click a link in
google's search result and my ISP refuses to take me there? Or does it work
differently?

~~~
kadenshep
Not really google's problem. You've done what they wanted you to do. Search!
The problem will most likely exist on any other search engine at that point --
if you care to use them in the first place.

~~~
idibidiart
I don't buy that it isn't be there problem. The UX will be broke. What good is
a search engine if I can't get anywhere.

Just because you're sure of your opinion, it doesn't mean it's correct Yet you
assert ... :)

~~~
kadenshep
>Just because you're sure of your opinion

It's not an opinion. Next time have a hard think about what you're actually
saying when you have to resort to emoji filled platitudes.

------
cdevs
These comments here from people in other countries are clear pictures of what
Americans will face if this goes through.

------
JonMontgo
I staunchly support net neutrality, and believe stronger federal protections
and intervention are necessary to protect the open internet and increase
competition - perhaps a federal ISP run through post offices.

------
unityByFreedom
Pai's proposal will only restore freedom for corporations to charge more for
content. There's no restoration of freedom to people.

When we give up our rights to corporations and captured agencies, we lose the
individual freedoms that agencies like the FCC were founded to protect.

I think that, even if the FCC passes this proposal, we'll have been on record
being massively against it. That will cost any representatives, republican
_or_ democrat, who support the current FCC.

America isn't about to forget the sub-par quality of its internet services,
and this proposal isn't going to fix that.

------
MadWombat
Hmm... they want name, address and phone number. And they require all the
fields before they allow submitting the form. No.

------
propman
This is all very confusing for me. Obviously I understand the NN arguments and
I accept the Ajit Pai arguments though I think it's very naive to think that
investments in infrastructure would be made without other significant
incentives, all which seem unlikely to occur.

My question is about 2015. Did we have NN before 2015? What changed then and
how would it differ from before? I was always under the assumption we had NN.

~~~
neuterlize
Yes, we had NN before 2015. It was the default state and how the Internet was
originally built.

We used to have competition for Internet services (dialup and DSL), now we
don't (most people access the Internet through cable which is a monopoly).

The reason why we are losing NN now is because it's become feasible from a
technical and business perspective to violate NN.

Pai's arguments are pure unadulterated bullshit. Abolishing NN will not
increase investments or create competition. CEOs are on record that NN will
not impact business or investments.

~~~
phaus
>We used to have competition for Internet services (dialup and DSL), now we
don't (most people access the Internet through cable which is a monopoly).

Calling Dial-Up and DSL "competition" is downplaying how shitty things were
even in 2015. They are technically competition, but effectively and
practically they aren't because the modern web doesn't even work with dial-up
and in the many places stuck with the low-end of DSL it is next to worthless
too.

~~~
IshKebab
I think he meant competition between different dialup providers, and different
DSL providers.

------
oliv__
Could this be the beginning of some kind of alt-Internet being created to
bypass any kind of throttling?

------
ahgibby
Stop with the a la carte comparisons. These plans i) show that the mobile
market is competitive and ii) are a way for folks to use popular data hungry
apps more than they otherwise without with just a regular data plan.

------
ForFreedom
Will users outside the US have to pay extra for netflix etc?

~~~
bananarepdev
If it passes in the US, other countries will follow.

------
joantune
Either:

There are lots of fellow hacker news readers (with significant karma) that
don't know a thing about Net Neutrality.

Or: this thread is full of FUD bots to push against Net Neutrality

~~~
kelnos
No, I think there are just a decent amount of people who actually do support
less regulation here. I mean, they're naive and entirely wrong about the
effects of deregulation in this case, but I don't detect much in the way of
intellectually dishonest discussion.

------
zorta
there is something we can do from Italy?

~~~
unityByFreedom
I would keep a lookout for ISPs doing things like zero rating or other
roundabout ways of breaking net neutrality. Arguably, net neutrality is
already broken in the US since the current administration isn't going to
enforce the current policy. As businesses find ways to make more short term
profits here, others will probably follow the same tactics elsewhere.

------
HighPlainsDrftr
I wish I knew more about wireless/WISP? There has to be a way to provide
reliable 1Gbps service to residential areas. If I could find a way to provide
such a service, I would certainly look to do it and provide NN myself.

Maybe I could even strike a deal with Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/etc and try to do my
own double-play/triple-play sort of thing.

Does anyone have any resources regarding getting 1Gbps bandwidth to the
masses?

~~~
BenjiWiebe
My cousin runs a WISP. I asked him about the feasibility of using wireless to
get a 100Mbps connection of 10 miles. He basically laughed at me. He also said
that interference is a huge issue; after all, who doesn't have WiFi? And are
you going to spend tens of thousands* of dollars to reserve a chunk of
spectrum for yourself?

*I have no idea how much this would cost, probably more than I said.

------
cobbzilla
Best argument for NN: Let's freeze things now (and saddle every
startup/mom'n'pop ISP with Ma Bell-style regulation) so the oligarchs don't
become ever more powerful

Best argument against NN: Entrenching today's power brokers will not bode well
for the future and will kill all of the smaller players.

~~~
neuterlize
Your arguments don't make much sense.

Network neutrality is not Ma Bell style regulation. NN will not freeze things.
Don't know which oligarchs you are referring to, but any NN laws are unlikely
to stop them 'garching.

Killing NN is unlikely to kill all the small players. In fact they might
rather thrive by using NN as a competitive tool.

~~~
cobbzilla
The "NN regulations" that the FCC adopted specifically classified Internet
services as Title II "telecommunication services", subject to 1930s-style
telecom regulations. Yes, these are "Ma Bell" style regulations.

I presume you don't believe in the existence of selective enforcement in
industries where the government holds massive regulatory power? Why does it
seem somehow that the most powerful incumbents are never punished, but smaller
upstarts are crushed (or not even started) due to the regulatory burden? NN
makes this worse.

Pai merely proposes to move things back to the way they were since the
beginning of Internet Time to 2015, way back when the Internet was a Title I
"information service", subject to much less formal regulation by the FCC. This
is met with furious uproar.

~~~
unityByFreedom
> Pai merely proposes ... This is met with furious uproar

His proposal would enable ISPs to make access to some content slower, or more
expensive, than others.

His proposal does nothing to resolve existing broadband monopolies.

Many people like the way the internet works today and do not want Pai's
policies to pass. We don't want more silos or limited access to content.
People are making their voices heard because they feel strongly about this
issue.

~~~
cobbzilla
Do you not fear that regulatory capture would leave us with the worst of both
worlds?

~~~
unityByFreedom
We're in a state of regulatory _right now_ and it is a worse world. It's not
hypothetical

~~~
cobbzilla
are you implying that despite the regulatory capture that has already
occurred, somehow further regulations will not subsequently be captured? there
is a saying about the person who does the same thing again and again expecting
a different result.

~~~
unityByFreedom
> are you implying that despite the regulatory capture that has already
> occurred, somehow further regulations will not subsequently be captured?
> there is a saying about the person who does the same thing again and again
> expecting a different result.

Are you implying that even after you solve a problem, there are still other
problems, so the best thing to do is to do nothing? There is a word for people
who do nothing and criticize those who act.

~~~
cobbzilla
I never implied that there were no problems, please do not put words in my
mouth. My point was merely that centralizing control of the Internet is
exactly what the oligarchs want, and you are carrying water for them. Why is
the EFF against NN while AT&T is for it? Thanks for helping the multi-billion
dollar company, I'm sure they appreciate it.

------
RIMR
I am firmly in support of net neutrality, but I am also sick and tired of all
the ridiculous misinformation about what it actually is. At least on Reddit,
people would have you believe that the Internet is about to become Cable TV.

Net Neutrality is very important to a free and open Internet, but the kind of
scaremongering I see going on is absolutely insane.

We won't win this fight with scary lies. Do your part and make sure your peers
are educated as to the real consequences of this repeal. None of this "You
must pay to view additional posts on this website" or "Imagine if EA were your
ISP" nonsense.

~~~
y2bd
When SOPA was going on so-and-so years ago, there was a similar bout of over-
exaggerated hysteria to get people in action. I was against it back then, but
I think the last couple of years have shown that panic and outrage is what
actually gets people motivated to do anything, rather than straight, boring
facts. Why not harness it for something good then?

~~~
rory096
I'm sorry, what? The lesson of the last couple years is that we should act
_more_ like extremists drumming up outrage with misinformation?

~~~
stuntkite
He's not wrong. People are lead by how they feel and not facts. There are
responsible ways to make pleas to emotion on a large scale and there are
manipulative things that bad actors can do with it as well. You will not win
hearts and minds with pure rationality when your opponent doesn't give a shit
about that. Emotional lives are just as real as cold hard facts, and as we've
seen, can be so real that they manifest the expectation.

I'm not an expert, nor am I an activist, but I have been reading about people
studying 4chan's tactics in a post prez45 world. How a culture of open dialog
to extreme gave a small group of people a weapon. Erudite "rationals"
considered this sort of thing to be stupid nonsense, but it trained an entire
culture to be massively effective at steering people's emotions. Their ideas
can move faster without the absolute need for sensitivity or maybe because of
a pathological need to offend. The current interest is in finding ways to work
that radical acceptance into progressive discourse. It's important but I don't
think anyone has a playbook yet.

~~~
rory096
>You will not win hearts and minds with pure rationality when your opponent
doesn't give a shit about that.

Where are these hardline radical pro-Comcast types?

>There are responsible ways to make pleas to emotion on a large scale and
there are manipulative things that bad actors can do with it as well.

Frankly, the net neutrality movement has failed that test miserably in this
latest campaign in particular. It's disappointing to see this from the side I
support, to the point that I find myself alienated from the viewpoint
altogether and have to remind myself that the policy is the only part that is
important.

Exhibit A:
[https://imgur.com/gallery/CD9H7QU](https://imgur.com/gallery/CD9H7QU)

>I'm not an expert, nor am I an activist, but I have been reading about people
studying 4chan's tactics in a post prez45 world. How a culture of open dialog
to extreme gave a small group of people a weapon. Erudite "rationals"
considered this sort of thing to be stupid nonsense, but it trained an entire
culture to be massively effective at steering people's emotions. Their ideas
can move faster without the absolute need for sensitivity or maybe because of
a pathological need to offend. The current interest is in finding ways to work
that radical acceptance into progressive discourse. It's important but I don't
think anyone has a playbook yet.

Liberals (in the academic/international sense) used to see these unfortunate
behavioral quirks of humanity exploited by fascists & autocrats and vow to be
better than appealing to basic instincts and herd mentality. I do not look
forward to a world where radicalization and alarmism are viewed as standard
tools in a campaigner's belt and reasonable people intentionally spread
hyperbole or outright lies to convince the public to go their way.

~~~
stuntkite
I don't like that future either, but it's not quite what I'm saying. I
definitely feel you on the fatigue. My point is that it's a mistake to just
say "I'll wait till they come around" and not try to figure out how to make
ethical communication based on facts that has as much pull as carpetbagging
alarmists. Hardline pro Comcast types would be any Neo-Liberal, Big biz
Republican, and some libertarians.

We lost this battle a long time ago[1][2] is the real issue. However, they
don't have absolute control over sending electrons around in a box, nor how
distributed systems work in absolute. Innovation has stagnated as an entire
generation of the greatest minds build an advertising scheme. The internet is
fucking broken in a bizare way. As it continues to fragment, it will be a lot
like our transition from AOL to an open web.

People not in the know will be given palpable bullshit to keep the fat cats in
slow braised bushmeat. People with a pursuit of knowledge and innovation will
move to platforms that are harder to access by the masses, fragmenting the
utility we have now but giving a lot of power to the people on the inside
track.

This is already happening in restrictive places like China as well as
basically everywhere else. Hiding information and connections in aggregates of
other data. Building out online dark nets as well as physical mesh networks. I
see the LimeSDR playing a huge role as the web gets shittier than it is. An
open source transceiver on a chip that can do everything from UHF to 5G, you
can connect to an existing provider, but at any sort of density removes the
need to rely on single points like cell tower networks. Also expanding to use
any bandwidth or multiple with a software modification. I just bought their
$3000 "Network in a Box"[3] and am building an LTE neighborhood darknet (3
Kilometers!) with my buddy. We are going to get repeaters and DIY phones to
anyone in range and grow from there.

The alternatives to the system don't exist yet, but innovation will not stop
just because they want to sell more Thor DVDs. I'm pretty tired of it too and
it feels bullshit to say "this" is over, but it is. Now we just have to take
what we've learned, build something better, and learn how to bring the
ignorant on our side to prevent it from happening again.

I know it won't happen, but it is an absolute fact that no one actually needs
facebook. Every single one of us could shut down our account at the same time
and change the world in a big way.

There isn't a google replacement yet (don't tell me DuckDuckGo), but maybe we
can bring webrings back.

[1] [https://thenextweb.com/eu/2017/06/09/pirate-bay-founder-
weve...](https://thenextweb.com/eu/2017/06/09/pirate-bay-founder-weve-lost-
the-internet-its-all-about-damage-control-now/) [2]
[https://webfoundation.org/2017/04/sir-tim-berners-lee-
respon...](https://webfoundation.org/2017/04/sir-tim-berners-lee-responds-to-
us-net-neutrality-threat/) [3] [https://www.crowdsupply.com/lime-
micro/limenet](https://www.crowdsupply.com/lime-micro/limenet)

------
axl
This is simply a disagreement between content publishers and content
distributors. When a big satellite TV provider acted unfavorably toward a few
major television networks during contract (re)-negotiation, those select few
decided not to renew their license with the satellite TV company, causing
viewers to ask why they can't get their favorite channel that their neighbor
still gets.

The internet works similarly in that an electronic contract is formed when an
ISP attempts to access content on web server. The client/ISP "requests" the
content, and the publisher agrees and serves it up. But there's nothing
stopping a collective "big few" from denying access to the content based on
the host name of the ISP requesting it.

Ergo, if Verizon doesn't want to play "fair" with regards to content
distribution, Facebook/Google/Twitter/Netflix/Reddit and whomever else could
deny access to Verizon subscribers with an ol fashioned HTTP 403 or 401.

Yes, traffic drops, people realize quickly that they can't access any of their
favorite sites, things must be broken, and switch companies.

------
marcoperaza
The US didn’t have Net Neutrality until two years ago, and somehow everything
was just fine. There’s no need to preemptively impose heavy handed regulation
to fix problems that have not yet occurred, and indeed may never occur, in the
US.

Bundling seems to be the boogeyman de jour. But consumers in the US are used
to universal access to the internet and would probably not respond well to
such practices. And if we wanted to preemptively ban any type of internet
connection except a universal one, there is no need to apply much broader and
constricting Title II regulation to it.

~~~
quake
The US _did_ have NN up until two years ago, it was the default the internet
was designed upon.

------
Nazzareno
Internet money is made by the "over-the-top" (Google, Facebook & co.) leaving
ISP to pay for the infrastructure. Net neutrality will allow ISP to bill users
not only on bandwidth, but also based on what you do on the net. Ie: do you
want a fast Youtube? Someone will have to pay (google or the users). They will
be allowed to slow down some websites and speed up others, and that's really
bad.

~~~
uluyol
Net neutrality _prevents_ your ISP from charging you based on the content you
view, not the other way around.

I don't see how Google or Facebook fit in. By paying Comcast, I pay for them
to build out their network and connect me to the whole internet. Why does
Google's profits matter?

