Ask HN: Is net neutrality overblown?

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

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.

> 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.

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?

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.

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

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... 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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.