Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Intel, Cisco, and IBM all sell deep packet inspection products. They have a material interest in not seeing NN go through.


And all of the web-tech companies who support Net Neutrality rely utterly on other peoples' wires to deliver content to their users. They have a huge interest in regulating telcos into "dumb pipes." There's huge monetary incentives on both sides of this debate.


Yes, they rely on other people's wires, namely the ones rented (i.e. paid for) by the consumers of their products. How do you justify double dipping in this case?


Apple charges me for my iPhone, then takes 30% when someone sells me an app for it. Sony charges me for a PS3, then charges publishers a fee for every copy of every game they release. When your property facilitates a transaction between two parties, it's not "double dipping" to charge a fee to both.


And I think dumb pipes open for everyone is best.

After all ... it would be inconvenient if your utility company told you what can you use your electricity for.


It would be inconvenient if my ISP was keeping 100 year old infrastructure running like my power company. Or refusing to upgrade aging lead pipes leaking poison into the drinking water like my water company. The U.S. has a multi-trillion infrastructure deficit, and regulating utilities as dumb services is a huge part of that.

Legislating the wires into "dumb pipes" has certain advantages in terms of openness, but there's no money in building dumb pipes, and these pipes are expensive and must be continually upgraded, much more so than other kinds of utilities.


No its not the reason. You could always price the service high enough to get some sane ROI. It is zero risk investment.

I don't mind paying for what my service is worth. I mind giving someone else control over my digital life.


Utilities don't set their own rates, for obvious reasons. Public rate-setting boards do, and they are beholden to municipal politics, which target the lowest-common denominator. If you tried to raise rates to upgrade the network, you'd be shouted down by people talking about old folks on fixed incomes.

What do you think is going to happen at a rate-setting meeting? For every young nerd who thinks the utility should invest in fiber, how many people like my parents will be there (who wanted to switch from FiOS to cable to get Indian channels)?


The FCC"s plan isn't NN. It's a gigantic steaming pile of regulations that's ostensibly designed to implement NN. So far, any attempts at public debate gets reduced to emotional screeches and partisanship without any real meat to anything.

We're doomed. Maybe not today, tomorrow or next year, but censorship as you fear it is coming and you have yourselves to blame.


I just don't get this. The telecoms already started the censorship process when they decided to prioritize some types of traffic over others. The free market failed free speech the moment that happened, so yes, we the people decided to phone our government and tell them we don't want a bunch of $limeball$ deciding who gets to see what.

We've exchanged impending corporate censorship for possible, maybe, conjectured future government censorship.

I know which one I favor.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: