
Ask HN: Is anyone here actually against Net Neutrality? - jefflombardjr
Is anyone here against Net Neutrality?<p>Genuinely curious. It seems anyone who I&#x27;ve talked to is supportive of Net Neutrality or uninformed.<p>If they&#x27;re uninformed, as soon as I explain that Comcast will essentially be able to do the same thing as cell data providers, charge for overages, and mention how this might affect Netflix. They are quickly for Net Neutrality.<p>The reason I ask is supposedly a vote is happening next week.<p>http:&#x2F;&#x2F;mashable.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;11&#x2F;17&#x2F;net-neutrality-thanksgiving&#x2F;#85OkRymkMmqG
https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.battleforthenet.com&#x2F;
======
maxharris
I'm against net neutrality. I'm also against the local, state and federal
regulations that gives Comcast and similar companies any competitive advantage
over new entrants.

The cable companies actively lobby to maintain things like local taxes and
regulations on communication infrastructure (literally - you have to pay extra
taxes to put cables up on the poles) because this creates an additional
barrier to competition.

We don't currently have a telecommunications _market_. It has been sectioned
off and divided up, and rolling out new ideas and services is basically
illegal: you have to convince a ton of people in government of what you plan
to do first. And so progress takes a lot more time than it would be if people
were free in this respect.

\---

Disruption is coming, though. For example, gigabit fiber is a reality for me
here in Seattle where population density is high. And satellites that sit
relatively low in the sky above us promise to improve things _globally_! (This
is very different from existing satellite internet services, which are very
latent because the current satellites sit much higher up in the sky.)

~~~
jefflombardjr
Well, I certainly agree with getting rid of subsidies that give a competitive
advantage. But I don't understand how that translates into being against net
neutrality, wouldn't you just be against the FCC in its entirety?

~~~
maxharris
Yes. But it's not practical to just call for the abrupt elimination of any
agency. First we have to stop heading in the wrong direction, then slowly
unwind over time.

------
cdoxsey
> If they're uninformed, as soon as I explain that Comcast will essentially be
> able to do the same thing as cell data providers, charge for overages, and
> mention how this might affect Netflix. They are quickly for Net Neutrality.

Except its all a lot more complicated than that. Because its impossible to
pass actual legislation anymore, ISPs were apparently re-classified under
Title II of the telecommunications act. An archaic, byzantine, 1930s era law,
the text of which can be found here:
[https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf](https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf).

I have no idea what most of the stuff in that document means, and I have no
idea what the ramifications of any changes to it would be.

I don't want a company like Comcast blocking my ability to visit certain sites
or use certain apps.

But I'm also concerned about the Government attempting to stifle free
expression. Historically we've had all kinds of rules governing the radio and
television (what you can and can't say on TV, the fairness doctrine, etc) so I
don't think those concerns are entirely unfounded...

But those are just ideas and I'm not sure the debate we're having on these
questions has anything to do with the decisions actually being made.

The laws in this country are designed to be unintelligible because (1) it
allows politicians to make absurd, empty promises, because its impossible to
know what was actually passed and (2) it gives bureaucrats total discretion in
how laws are enforced so that (3) they can leverage laws for political favors
and to punish their enemies.

And that's what I'm against: a bazillion banana republic laws which no one can
possibly follow.

~~~
maxerickson
Cable has been a free for all, only broadcast TV has had legal decency
standards.

Advertisers prevented basic cable from swearin'.

------
tabeth
I feel that it's kind of hypocritical to be to be OK with companys like Google
and Facebook to have more and more leverage on the internet and information in
general, yet care about net neutrality.

That being said, I'm for net neutrality and also for the breaking up of Google
and Facebook.

~~~
muzani
The difference is that it's a choice whether to use Google and Facebook. A lot
of people are disagreeing with Facebook and there's a movement to gradually
move off it. Google at least tries to appear neutral, letting people search
for everything short of child porn, even the highly illegal or dangerous.

CDNs seem exceptionally powerful though.

~~~
tabeth
> The difference is that it's a choice whether to use Google and Facebook.

This is normally used as the main argument. I disagree. That's like saying you
have a choice on whether or not you use electricity, which is technically
true. How much of the popular web could you really use if you didn't use
anything that touched Facebook or Google?

------
ry4n413
Is Google Fiber expansion ramping back up? It seemed prior to the election
they were not looking to continue the costly expansion, but because of the
trump administration and deregulation they are now expanding (Louisville). The
thing the Louisville expansion shows is the difficulty ATT gives new
competitors in the area.

------
miguelrochefort
Absolutely.

Net neutrality effectively prevents a philanthropist from launching satellites
making Wikipedia or Khan Academy (but nothing else) available for free to
everyone.

What is worse than net neutrality are artificial monopolies given to ISPs.

