Ask SN: Is net neutrality good or bad? \ stacker news ~meta

2541 sats \ 33 comments \ @BlokchainB 19 Oct 2023 meta

Reading a Washington Post article with the headline

“Democrats renew push to restore net neutrality, years after its repeal”

To avoid the partisan political spin around this topic I am trying to figure out if this is good or bad for general privacy, cost, and freedom to use the internet.

I would like to think this is a good thing the democrats are trying to do but then I wonder does this industry need more government control.

Stackers let me know what you think!

view all related items

477 sats \ 2 replies \ @chairman_pretense 19 Oct 2023

Neutrality is good. Service suppliers shouldn't get to dictate how the service is used.

It would be as absurd as the postal service deciding what you can or can't write in a letter. Or black listing certain people from even being able to send or receive mail.

351 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 19 Oct 2023

It would be as absurd as the postal service deciding what you can or can't write in a letter. Or black listing certain people from even being able to send or receive mail.

Exactly. In the analog world, society has decided that privacy and censorship resistance is important - at least to some degree.

But in the digital world, it's still figuring this out.

150 sats \ 0 replies \ @chairman_pretense 19 Oct 2023

The fact that in the USA it takes a court order to access the list of books someone has borrowed from a library should show how far we've drifted from upholding privacy laws in the digital world.

People already fought in the highest courts to protect your right to read privately!

453 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 19 Oct 2023

Net neutrality is good for an open internet which is not controlled by ISPs.

Net neutrality means that ISPs should not shape traffic as they see fit. Not even when it's "illegal traffic".

So net neutrality also means that governments can't force ISPs to shut down your internet because you're suspected of a crime by potentially fining the ISPs for any illegal activity that you might be doing. So ISPs would rather just shut down your internet access before it even gets to this point.

So think of net neutrality like asserting that the internet should be more like public infrastructure. If the net is not neutral, it's no longer public infrastructure.

There was a lawsuit where some government wanted to fine ISPs for piracy of their users. The ISPs tried to argue that they can't be fined since Twitter also wasn't fined for terrorists using their platform. And ISPs have even less control what goes through their networks. But can't find it at the moment.

Here are some sources which I haven't verified myself but the headlines look like they go more into depth of what I am trying to say:

307 sats \ 11 replies \ @kepford 19 Oct 2023

Here's one of many reasons that net neutrality is a bad idea.

All it takes to ruin the internet experience for many users is for a few users to use massive amounts of data. I have a friend that runs a small wireless ISP that serves non-profits and rural customers. He explained to me what happens.

You have a new customer that gets service. They start downloading movies eating up the bandwidth of fellow customers. Not all traffic is equal. That idea is absurd. As bitcoiners we should know this principle by looking at bitcoin's design. We pay fees to get our transaction into a block. If you don't care about your transaction being in the next block you pay less. If you have to have it you pay more. Free markets are the answer here not government force. We don't need governments to point a gun at ISPs. Honestly, I think these politicians are not at all interested in neutrality. This is just more control over ISPs. What we need is more ISPs. More competition.

536 sats \ 10 replies \ @ek 19 Oct 2023

You have a new customer that gets service. They start downloading movies eating up the bandwidth of fellow customers

That's not how it should work. You get the bandwidth you pay for. Not more not less. That's also how bitcoin works: you pay for the speed.

Net neutrality is that whatever you download, they don't care. You get what you pay for whatever you do with it.

Same principle with energy: if I pay for my energy, it shouldn't matter what I do with it.

If one customer impacts other customers, that has nothing to do with net neutrality. Just that your system does not isolate enough.

Or you're running a "fractional bandwidth system".

100 sats \ 7 replies \ @kepford 19 Oct 2023

you're running a "fractional bandwidth system".

This is a bad argument. Based on this logic all restaurants should be forced to be all you can eat.

121 sats \ 6 replies \ @ek 19 Oct 2023

Why? If I pay for one meal, I get one meal.

If I pay to get consistently 100mbit/s, I should get consistently 100mbit/s. If you can't guarantee that, then that's another problem. I don't know enough about ISPs to go more into depth there.

My argument was that if you sell more bandwidth than you can provide, then it's no surprise you're going to run into problems. That's what I was trying to say.

131 sats \ 5 replies \ @kepford 19 Oct 2023

So to be clear I'm not defending ISPs. Most of them suck. Most oversell. My friend that runs the WISP says the same thing. Getting the government involved in network management is a terrible idea. Its really that simple. I've yet to meet a network guy that is pro net neutrality.

I agree that it is bad for gate keepers to censor or slow down traffic. Honestly, I have never seen a single example of this besides this clearly reasonable example. Many cellular providers will throttle YouTube and Netflix traffic. It chews up a ton of their bandwidth. My friend has told me about how wasteful Apple TV is for example with bandwidth. Massively inefficient. I don't think ISPs really care about censorship as much as providing fast service to the most customers. There aren't unlimited resources and a few can ruin the experience for many others.

Gov regulation is the wrong lever to pull to fix these issues. Getting them involve ANY more than they already are is gonna make it worse.

121 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 19 Oct 2023

I don't think ISPs really care about censorship as much as providing fast service to the most customers.

I also don't think that. ISPs don't want to deal with this stuff. Isn't net neutrality exactly to make this clear? That ISPs are not responsible for censorship and thus can't be fined by the government to enforce censorship?

131 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 19 Oct 2023

If that is the framing its bullshit.

110 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 19 Oct 2023

Maybe. Thanks for the discussion. I have to read more sources on that topic, like what an @anon posted here.

I realized I am missing some perspectives on that topic, like yours or that of ISPs :)

Most of the times, I agree with what the EFF is doing.

So my opinion is probably well summarized by this piece of the EFF.

view replies

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @cyberpunk02 19 Oct 2023

That ISPs are not responsible for censorship and thus can't be fined by the government to enforce censorship?

--- translation --- "If you follow my laws you won't be sued by my citizens, that is unless they think you're not following them. In all cases you better do what I say. BTW, I was going to fine you just before, because you're letting people make noise"

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 19 Oct 2023

So I think the issue here is that what you are describing is one way of packaging network access. I've never ran an ISP but I know people that do it on a daily basis. You cannot guarantee bandwidth. An ISP can package a plan with no caps, no filtering, and insert whatever you like. Before I had fiber I paid more for higher availability with the WISP. WISPs have constraints that cable/fiber providers do not have. The cost of providing Internet to rural customers is high and bandwidth is limited. I paid for no limits. They do no network forming. Others are not will or maybe able to afford the fee I was paying each month. For them they get reduced speeds but at a cost they can afford. I think you are forcing this into something it isn't. I have yet to see examples of ISPs abusing "the Internet". What I have seen is areas with only one ISP option. The bottom line is that happy customers don't leave a service provider. All of the net neutrality regulation ideas I have seen put more barriers between customers and service providers. We don't need more regulation on the Internet. We need less. All we need is the profit motive and open competition.

The other side of this is property rights. If I build out a network and offer you access to it as long as I abide by my contract with you we are good. Right? Why do we need the state to get into it and tell us what we can and can't do? When the state creates false floors on service they create scarcity and higher prices. Net neutrality is something I used to support btw. Every network engineer I have talked to about it has either laughed for given me a long lecture on the problems with the idea. Then I saw how companies were funding the politicians around it and realized. Yeah, this is a scam.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 19 Oct 2023

All of the net neutrality regulation ideas I have seen put more barriers between customers and service providers.

I think that's where we lose each other. For me, net neutrality is to tell the government where the line is. It's not (or less) about more regulation of ISPs. It's about more regulation of the government itself.

But I think I see where you're coming from. You see it as limiting what ISPs can do. I see it as limiting what governments can force ISPs to do what they want if it's against net neutrality.

342 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 19 Oct 2023

For context I know some folks that run a small ISP. They laugh when I bring up net neutrality. They bring up how Netflix operates and champions net neutrality. The idea of net neutrality is flawed. The idea that the government is the best method to solve a problem is also flawed.

What problem are we solving here? Are the public really having issues using the Internet? Here's what will happen if the state tries to enforce some vague rules called "net neutrality". ISPs will have more regulations and boxes to check. It is already difficult for new upstarts to enter the market. In most areas we have very few options. High regulation reduces competition because it makes it harder for new start ups to enter the market.

If an ISP starts blocking YouTube for example. What would the ideal solution be? For the customer to have another option. Change ISPs. I don't believe ISPs are behaving badly in this area. My guess is that this is coming up again because regulators want more control over our access to the Internet. The Internet is dangerous to those in power and they feel that they are losing control. The answer to this non-problem is more freedom. Not less.

222 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 19 Oct 2023

but then I wonder does this industry need more government control.

The industry needs protection from the government. And unfortunately, only the government can give you protection from itself, lol

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @cyberpunk02 19 Oct 2023

The industry needs protection from the government. And unfortunately, only the government can give you protection from itself,

🤪😇 --- Translation --- Government "I am going to promises I won't hurt you" People "oh, I guess I should feel safer?"

50 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 19 Oct 2023

At least you can fight them with their own promises then

Assuming people give power to the government

Governments don't have infinite power, they have only as much power as we give them

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @cyberpunk02 20 Oct 2023

At least you can fight them with their own promises then yeah by using their system... I prefer to just say they don't get to hurt people. I don't give them the power to make promises about how they wont hurt us in a particular case. They break promises all the time so it becomes a destructive psyop. Better to focus energy on actually stoping them with bitcoin or in some other direct way Assuming people give power to the government Why? arn't they corrupt.. Isn't that what a statist would assume and propogate? Governments don't have infinite power, they have only as much power as we give them yes, for me you are on to it now

210 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 19 Oct 2023

I wrote about this the last time there was a big push: https://benjamincollins.com/blog/against-net-neutrality/

TL;DR - net neutrality is bad, and there are other better ways to achieve its purported goals

231 sats \ 2 replies \ @Sasquatch 19 Oct 2023

Have to offer some resistance here. The fact that this is being pushed by the democrats leave me to assume that this would create a new bureaucratic body that would control the internet. You want the govt controlling your node? Why would you want the govt controlling the internet?

152 sats \ 1 reply \ @chairman_pretense 19 Oct 2023

It'd be the same concern if the republicans were pushing it. Both are, by definition, stateists who believe in government control.

(If they weren't, they wouldn't all run for government!)

121 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 19 Oct 2023

Exactly. If a politician is pushing a new regulation your default position should be no. The incentives are for these people to do something even when doing something is harmful. They only focus on their intentions and not the consequences. I saw this from an early age in democrats. It took a lot longer for me to see it in republicans. They are the same though.

121 sats \ 0 replies \ @tnstacker8 19 Oct 2023

As a user - good. If I owned the service provider - bad.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 20 Oct 2023

I really haven't been following net neutrality for a while but I have been interested in it for many years going to my early days in IT. These quotes from Ars Technica make my point. While there might be some good intentions gleaned from these rules the bottom line is that these rules give a government agency that is not elected more power to regulate the Internet. I'm pro privacy and fairness but if you trust the US federal government agencies with that you have to be kidding yourself. I also don't trust the ISPs by the way.

"Today, there is no expert agency ensuring that the Internet is fast, open, and fair... Today, we begin a process to make this right. We propose to reinstate enforceable, bright-line rules to prevent blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization," Rosenworcel said at the commission meeting.

So we need the government to ensure the Internet is fast, open and fair... right

Title II regulation isn't just about net neutrality, Rosenworcel said, arguing that the reclassification will give the FCC more authority to protect national security on broadband networks. "When we stripped state-affiliated companies from China of their authority to operate in the United States, that action did not extend to broadband services, thanks to the retreat from Title II. This is a national security loophole that needs to be addressed," she said.

Authority is more power to the government.

Without Title II, the FCC has "limited authority to incorporate updated cybersecurity standards into our network policies," she said. The same is true of protecting privacy on broadband networks, she said.

This one is a real eye roller. The same government that was and still is spying on its own citizens will protect our privacy. Sorry guys I just don't buy what they are selling here.

FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 20 Oct 2023

Catching up on No Agenda podcast and they reminded me of another angle. The language in the rules about "lawful content". The theory on this is that ISPs can't censor but they CAN block unlawful content. So there you have it. FCC has the permission to force ISPs to censor content while selling it as freedom.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @benthecarman 19 Oct 2023

Let the market decide

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 19 Oct 2023

The state is not going to make it harder for itself to regulate internet content. I don't see how anyone who lived through the past few years can give them the benefit of the doubt with respect to their intentions. They've been making every effort to shut down unapproved opinions and inconvenient people.

Any state intervention into the internet needs to be opposed and assumed to be an effort to censor content and restrict voluntary interactions.