Ask HN: Is a .net domain good enough? - <AUTHOR> I'm trying to find a good name for a startup I'm working on and think I've finally found one that is really good. The problem is I've only managed to secure the .net domain for it. The .com is taken by a domain squatter who is not replying to my emails. Should I proceed with the name or continue looking? <comment><USER2> Can we not call everyone who holds domains squatters? Just because they don't:

* answer your emails

* you don't see anything on the page

* there are currently advertisements showing

* won't sell for 10$ because that's registration fee

doesn't make them a squatter. A cybersquatter is someone infringing on your trademark. In almost every case I see, the people calling someone a squatter are simply pissed off that the domain they want is taken and they have no legitimate rights or claim to it, other than they thought of it just now and think they can do something _better_ with it.

Thanks.

<comment><USER3> I agree, it is the same thing as buying a piece of land and waiting for the area to become more popular and sell later...

The issue comes from the fact that buying domains are very cheap and easy, but that's other problem.

*btw, I am not saying that I approve people with 1000s of domains just waiting for someone interested, but the business idea is the same.

<comment><USER4> Intentionally provocative question: So you think domain squatting is ethical if it's done occasionally and unsystematically, but not if it's done in an efficient and industrious manner?

<comment><USER2> If we use the real definition, it doesn't matter, if you break trademark law, you break trademark law.

<comment><USER4> Your definition doesn't match how I usually see the term used, so I don't understand how it's the real one. Sure, it's written into law that way, but legal jargon doesn't supersede actual widespread usage except in a legal context. When people say "domain squatting" or "cybersquatting," they mean speculatively buying and holding a domain with no intention of using it, hoping to sell it later when it becomes valuable to someone else. (And no, putting up a generic advertising search page does not qualify as "using" it for the purposes of this definition.)

<comment><USER2> Then what is 'using'? Please define it and think about the implications for domain name registrations at all levels.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I discourage it. People will always look for you (and worse still, send you mail) at the dot com. And there are lots of decent dot com names still available.

<comment><USER6> Wouldn't that also depend on the target audience of the site? If a site was targeted at the same people that use HN for example, I doubt they'd have a problem with the site using a .net

<comment><USER7> What if they only sort of peripherally remember the name? It's about finding it, rather than using it.

<comment><USER8> Most people (even geeks) use google to find a site they don't remember the exact url for, and google does a very good job at finding that url, regardless if there is a .com with the same name.

Eg. searching for 'python' gets you python.org as 1st result. You don't want to go to the .com

<comment><USER7> Because a ton of people link to python.org. Your startup most likely will not have that advantage.

Also, I wonder how many people (say, someone's boss), heard about this cool Python language and just tried python.com. Oops.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have multi-personality disorder on this question. The SEO in me says "I would take a strong, exact match .NET over a weak .COM every day of the week and twice on Sunday." For example, if you want to do restaurant scheduling, restaurantscheduling.net is better than servrschedulr.com or whatever the convention is these days.

However, I don't think exact-match domain names are the answer for everybody on this forum. I like them and swear by them, but a lot of y'all have goals which would be better served by something brandable, even if it does sound like twitpickr.ly.

PG mentions that people will always look for you at the dot com. This is true, but the dot com they're looking for you at is google.com, because direct navigation is dead. The ascendancy of search engines, broadening of the Internet away from technical Americans, increasing use of mobile devices, etc etc etc, have killed it convincingly.

As always, check your stats if you don't believe me.

<comment><USER10> This is something that I started noticing a few months ago myself. Almost all of the non-technical people I know have stopped using their address bar in exchange for using Google's search box when they want to go somewhere.

If I say to go to foobar.com, they'll open their browser, either go to their home page or _type in google.com_ , then type foobar.com into Google's search box, search, and then click on the first link.

When I've asked, they've almost all said that it was "easier" than typing in the address. I'm talking about tens of people... it's very strange, but I've certainly been seeing what you're talking about first-person.

<comment><USER11> I have the same experience. It seems strange in the age of address bars with searchable history and automatic search that people are still going out of their way to go to a URL they already know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Failure to secure the dot com cost us $400,000 at auction (plus legal fees over 10 years): I really can't recommend you try and build a brand without it. Even bit.ly owns bitly.com.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'd recommend against it. I worked for a company that was named akin to "example.net" Nearly every week, we'd get a call from someone who went to "examplenet.com" and didn't know why we were suddenly selling skateboards.

<comment><USER9> On the flip side, I host net-benefits.net as a favor to friends in the debating community, and every week _I_ get an email from somebody attempting to get into, e.g., Prudential's online insurance portal Net Benefits, because they Googled the name on their benefits statement. (There are about four places on the Internet that thought this would be a clever name for their insurance/investing portal.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I posted a similar question a couple of days ago here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1058437>

I'm curious how much it really matters. I can see it being a big deal for email, but for organic traffic I'm not convinced. Most domain squatters don't have anything up on the site, have a adsense landing page or something extremely outdated. Assuming your site has even mild success, your search engine ranking will be much, much higher. Sadly, the email issue is probably a show-stopper.

Also, I don't think a lot of people actually type the domain in the address bar. They're either clicking a link or searching.

The real question here is, can you pull a dropbox? Trademark the name, launch your site, get popular, then just take away the .com if the owner somehow infringes on your mark. Is this a valid precedent or do you have to have boat- loads of cash to actually make this work?

In any case, it's probably just easier to choose a different name. I just emailed someone yesterday about a .com domain name and he wanted $20k. Seems like the dropbox method might be easier.

</comment><comment><USER15> On the premise that you are expecting your start-up to be a success you should look for another domain and you should register the .com, .net .org .info etc... Besides your application you will be building a brand don't share it with a domain squatter and don't pay for a name over what is reasonable.

<comment><USER16> I disagreed with this statement because there are plenty of successful sites that has other dots besides .com. It's all depend on your application. If your application is useful, then people will come. For example, when I registered my website, <http://www.mathmaster.org>, the .dot com and everything else were taken but now I am still doing ok in term of visitor counts. Majority of my users come from either bookmarked or search engine anyway.

<comment><USER17> What happens when the domain squatter decide to persuade you (to buy the .com domain) by uploading porn?

Risks should be properly taken care of when building a brand.

<comment><USER18> I saw that recently on an innocuous kids site. A domain with a different tld, was a hard core porn site. Ouch.

I don't think that was a squatter it was just rather unfortunate. Unless that is a trend?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It could be interesting to look at Dropbox's story. Didn't they secure dropbox.com only recently?

<comment><USER20> Yes, but prior to that they used getdropbox.com, not dropbox.net (or something of that ilk). I do believe they were able to lawyer a squatter into releasing the dropbox.com domain _after_ they were proven successful.

<comment><USER19> You would think that being successful makes it _harder_ to get the domain back, since the squatter knows the real stakes.

What are the legal grounds for "lawyering" him into releasing the domain?

<comment><USER20> I guess Dropbox ended up taking legal action against dropbox.com when they started placing ads for Dropbox's competitors. As a result, the domain holder ended up handing the domain over (no mention of purchase in the article).

[http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/13/dropbox-acquires-the- do...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/13/dropbox-acquires-the-domain- everyone-thought-it-had-dropbox-com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If your product is a development tool targeted at .NET developers, then yes. Otherwise No. It looks bad, and nobody will remember it.

If you want to be a real business, you need a .com domain name. That's just the way it goes. Register the .net and .org variants of your name if they're available, but definitely run your site off a .com.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'd go .com whenever possible, at the cost of choosing a slightly different name.

37signals <http://campfirenow.com/> (instead of <http://campfire.com/>) is a typical illustration.

<comment><USER23> Or consider Dropbox that started at getdropbox.com before obtaining dropbox.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> When you are a startup with no money, I would say buy the .net first only if you could foresee buying the .com in the future when you do have the money. Example of this would be if the .net was available and the .com domain was owned by a squatter and is willing to sell it for $2k to $5k.

I wouldn't by a .net domain where the .com is already owned by an established company because you probably won't be able to buy it in the future.

</comment><comment><USER25> If you decide to look for another domain, someone posted a pretty cool app to Ycombinator called nxdom.com it is worth taking a look.

In my personal experience, I say go for a few domains and direct them to an alpha of your site with no branding. Then ask your alpha testers what they prefer, and if they can remember your url. There are some popular .net sites boingboing is the first thing that comes to my mind.

</comment><comment><USER26> The short answer is no.

The only time you should use the .net is if you have secured all the other TLDs and the .net is the best choice for branding or marketing.

<comment><USER27> \-- the .net is the best choice for branding or marketing.

I agree which is why, we need more information before making a recommendation as to what is the best course of action. If you are going to rely on word of mouth and a grass roots ground swell then you need a memorable name and I would say that the .com is very important.

If you are going to rely on advertising buys and blogger who will be linking to your site then the domain name is less important.

The comment about the squatter uploading porn to strong arm you is a very valid concern. If you are in a business where there could be confusion and that could reflect poorly on you then I would avoid the name all together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> In a nutshell, nope. If your startup takes off, part of your traffic (the type-in kind) will go to the .com, where it'll be a parked page full of Google or Yahoo ads, and will make the domain owner money.

Move on and find something else.

</comment><comment><USER29> I can help you with finding an alternate domain.

I've had the exact same problem very often and always ended up with something more imaginative, and practically better each time, once I start brainstorming.

Try combining two short normal words.

</comment><comment><USER30> You could try using Sedo (domain name buy/sell website) to make them an offer for the domain name (or they may even have it listed there), or use Namejet to try to grab it once it expires.

</comment><comment><USER31> I can only add that yes, it's a good idea to get the .com as well.

If you look at Slashdot, they didn't even bother with the .net (or they're struggling to get it), but they did register .org and .com

</comment><comment><USER32> What're your thoughts on .IO domain names? e.g. <http://braintrust.io>

</comment><comment><USER33> Have you tried the .us domain? I always suspected it's the next big landrush as so many of the .com names are gone.

<comment><USER33> [added] one example: script.aculo.us

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> If you really want the domain, then I would suggest that you go ahead with .net now, and later try to get the .com and link them to the same page.

To cite an example, Darren Rowse of Problogger initially started with problogger.net since the .com was with someone else ('squatter' as you call them). He started off the blog with the .net and later went on buying Problogger.com</comment>


Ask HN: I've got data, how do I train for NLP? - <AUTHOR> We are a chatbot startup (https://talkbot.io), on BETA right now. We want to train our own AI algorithms for NLP. We've got data but we are lost in what's the best way to use it for training an NLP algorithm.
I did the Andrew Ng Machine Learning course last year and have worked with ML and NN before, but never done something complex with words, semantics and syntax.
Are there any good online resources for learning how to train algorithms for NLP? Where should we start?
P.S. We are also looking for talented people to join the team. <comment><USER2> Which one are you trying to accomplish?

-Sentiment analysis

-Syntactic analysis

-Entity analysis

Google Cloud Natural Language API Documentation Natural Language API Basics

Contents Natural Language features Basic Natural Language requests Specifying text content Sentiment analysis

This document provides a guide to the basics of using the Google Cloud Natural Language API. This conceptual guide covers the types of requests you can make to the Natural Language API, how to construct those requests, and how to handle their responses. We recommend that all users of the Natural Language API read this guide and one of the associated tutorials before diving into the API itself.

Natural Language features

The Natural Language API has several methods for performing analysis and annotation on your text. Each level of analysis provides valuable information for language understanding. These methods are listed below:

Sentiment analysis inspects the given text and identifies the prevailing emotional opinion within the text, especially to determine a writer's attitude as positive, negative, or neutral. Sentiment analysis is performed through the analyzeSentiment method. Currently, only English is supported for sentiment analysis.

Entity analysis inspects the given text for known entities (proper nouns such as public figures, landmarks, etc.) and returns information about those entities. Entity analysis is performed with the analyzeEntities method. Syntactic analysis extracts linguistic information, breaking up the given text into a series of sentences and tokens (generally, word boundaries), providing further analysis on those tokens. Syntactic Analysis is performed with the analyzeSyntax method.

<comment><AUTHOR> We want to start by trying to predict what to reply.

E.g. if the user says: "Sweet!", "Thanks", "Ty", "Amazing", etc. asume that the bot has to reply with "No problem" or "Anytime".

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Check my Hacker news profile and send me an email.</comment>


Show HN: Emoji + ASCII domain registration - <AUTHOR> https://xn--i-7iq.ws <comment><USER2> That's pretty cool. I noticed in Safari, the browser keeps the emoji in the location bar, but Chrome seems to change it to its ascii punycode representation.

Do you know of any changes coming to chrome to support emoji better? If not, do you know of a setting or chrome extension that can change this behavior?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thx! Yeah... right now, Chrome displays punycode in the address bar. While I've been making an effort to reach out to various Dev teams behind browsers, my hope is that increased usage and awareness of Emoji Domains leads to full address bar support by Chrome and Firefox.</comment></comment>


Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet - <AUTHOR> https://www.blog.google/topics/public-policy/net-neutrality-day-action-help-preserve-open-internet/ <comment><USER2> If Google were actually serious about Net Neutrality, they would use their insane market power to protect it.

How? Well, a simple statement saying "any ISP who abuses net neutrality will have their customers cut off from Google products". No Google search, no YouTube, no Gmail. Have those requests instead redirect to a website telling the customer what their ISP is doing, why Google won't work with them, and how to call to complain to the ISP. Make the site list competitors in the user's area that don't play stupid games.

Is this an insane idea? Yep. Would Google come under scrutiny because of their now-obvious market power? Oh definitely. And Google would probably lose money over it. But it would certainly work.

People don't get internet, and then decide to use Google. They want Google and then get internet for that purpose.

edit: an hour later, fixing an autocorrect word

<comment><USER3> I love this idea because I read too much cyberpunk.

Why doesn't Twitter flex its muscle and cause a national crisis by tweeting "watch out China, nukes are coming" from Donald Trump's Twitter? That ruins trust in the platform, but what if they just banned the US president's account for TOS or something? Enormous amount of power.

What if Musk's first ship to Mars had a hidden Railgun on it? "Anybody else that wants to come to Mars must pay equivalent US 100,000 million per vehicle." Alternatively, "I now own mars, who can come as well is up to my whim."

What if Microsoft issued a malicious patch that gave it access to the NSA's servers? What if Comcast slurped up FBI traffic?

In the internet and space age, corporations are getting enough _real_ power that government power can be outright stepped over. Sure, say Comcast slurps data somehow from CIA and FBI, goes to prez, and says "give us x or we sell this to Russia," the US gov can turn around and threaten to arrest the CEO, or fine them, or kick down doors and start tearing apart infrastructure with the US military, but Comcast could easily say "do any of the above and the data is given to Russia, for free."

Musk has weaponised Mars, a state actor says "unweaponise it or be hanged," Musk can say "well, the cannon is automated, has 300 rounds of ammunition, and will not deactivate unless my secret passcode and the secret passcode of another person who I will not name, are provided. Per detected vehicle."

Etc.

Exciting, fun, terrifying. It can go fantastic for us (Google and Netflix telling telecoms to suck it), or absolutely horrifying (Comcast holding the US government hostage).

<comment><USER4> Technically, the US President holds the power to end life on Earth should he so desire. To the best of my knowledge, there is no safeguard in place that could prevent such a course of action if it were attempted. Even Comcast's power seems rather pitiful in comparison.

<comment><USER5> _To the best of my knowledge, there is no safeguard in place that could prevent such a course of action if it were attempted_

I can tell you for certain that there are dozens of safeguards. That scenario not only isn't possible, it's not plausible. Yes the President has the "codes" but those codes don't launch the missiles [1]. The scenario described is one in which there are literally nuclear warheads on a ballistic trajectory headed to the US with a verified source of origin.

I think the trope stays around because people, despite what they say publicly, like the idea of an emperor style president with supreme power.

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear- wea...](https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-weapon- launch/)

<comment><USER6> I'm afraid that you have misunderstood the Bloomberg article. Nothing in it is about checking the power of the president (it says itself the president determines when to end the meetings and whether to ignore advice). It is all about verifying that _The President_ has issued the order, and then ensuring that order is carried out. The President is contacted in this scenario simply because he's the only one who can actually authorize retaliation. He is enabled to do that independently, which is what the nuclear football is for.

Alex Wellerstein is a academic researcher on the history of nuclear weapons, and he describes the situation thus:

[http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president- and-...](http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-the- bomb/)

"""

>>Are there any checks in place to keep the US President from starting a nuclear war?

What's amazing about this question, really, is how seriously it misunderstands the logic of the US command and control system. It gets it exactly backwards.

The entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that _the President and _only_ the President_ is capable of authorizing nuclear war _whenever he needs to_. It is about enabling the President's power, not checking or restricting him.

"""

<comment><USER5> I was just describing the official process. Having spent 14 years in the military I can tell you that it's more complex than just that.

 _The entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that the President and only the President is capable of authorizing nuclear war whenever he needs to._

Yes, legally and formally. Informally though, as I said, it won't go down like that, especially if it's not completely unambiguous that there is a nuclear attack on the US.

<comment><USER7> this is not my understanding. there is no such checking because in a real threat the president only has about 7 minutes until the enemies nukes fall from subs off the coast. to be a credible deterrent it has to be assumed he can order the launch in less time than that. if verification of unambiguous threat takes more time than that then the enemy can just nuke us confident we'll all be dead before our pres can get his military to accept the order

[http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-59-the- des...](http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-of- worlds/)

<comment><USER8> who cares about launching on 7 minutes when nuke subs can strike anyway at any time even after the attack ?

<comment><USER9> But who would you give command authority for that? Here in the UK, where we wouldn't even have 7 minutes in the event of an attack from Russia, we rely on exactly that strategy (possibly - the contents of the prime minister's "letters of last resort" to our submarine captains are secret and destroyed unopened when a PM leaves office) - but the flipside is that individual submarine captains have both the authority and the means to launch nuclear weapons without requiring approval from anywhere further up the chain.

<comment><USER8> as far as i know if deep sea subs cannot contact the headquarters for x amount of time they should assume their country was nuked and are supposed to retaliate.

<comment><USER9> That doesn't answer the question. Who do you give the command authority for that decision? Who gets to say "we cannot contact the headquarters", which amounts to being able to launch the nuclear weapons? And obviously if you want them to be able to launch under those circumstances you have to give them any "launch codes" or what-have-you beforehand.

<comment><USER4> In the case of the UK, there is a sealed letter in each Trident sub with instructions from the PM in case the nation's leaders have been terminated.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I mentioned the letters of last resort, but while the letter will contain orders, the captain has sole launch authority, and it's difficult to imagine the system could work in a way that avoids that - whatever process you require the captain to follow, they could simply decide to follow that process as though the leadership were uncontactable.

<comment><USER10> I don't know what the actual procedure is; however like with Science Fiction and 'Self Destruct' codes I would think that a multi-agent auth challenge would be required.

The captain and some fixed number of executive officers. Possibly with redundancy for one or two crew being dead. The auth codes would cause a safe to unlock or message to de-crypt.

Presumably the instructions would be delivered to each authenticating member so that all could receive the orders simultaneously.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _Thanks in part to net neutrality, the open internet has grown to become an unrivaled source of choice, competition, innovation, free expression, and opportunity._

Unless my history is wrong, and please correct me if that is the case, until the Title II decision in 2015, there were no regulations preventing an ISP from discriminating network traffic. So to say that Net Neutrality has been key to an open internet from 1980-2015 seems without merit.

I think the argument here is the same for any argument of nationalization: To turn a private good into a public one.

Businesses, local and federal governments, have all contributed to the infrastructure that is the internet. So the private company can't say, "well it was all our investment" and equally the Government can't say "This is a public good."

<comment><USER11> Net neutrality _regulations_ were adopted to protect (and in some degree restore) the net neutrality _condition_ ; the internet was largely neutral from its inception; though by the early 00s threats to neutrality in practice were becoming clear, and the FCC began discussion the issue, adopting open internet principles that it first attempted to promote via case-by-case action (which was limited by the courts), then Title I regulation (which was struck down by the courts) in 2010.

There's considerable reason to believe that even without enforceable rules, the attention and active policy activity directed at enforceable rules inhibited non-neutral action by ISPs compared to what it would have been without that activity.

> So to say that Net Neutrality has been key to an open internet from > 1980-2015 seems without merit.

To say net neutrality _regulations_ have been would be without merit, sure. To say net neutrality has been, OTOH, is factually true.

<comment><USER12> One thing I've wondered is why ISPs turned evil after so many years of voluntary net neutrality.

<comment><USER13> They didn't change. They bought eachother and squeezed out competition out until their influence was more powerful than the consequences of playing unfairly. A long long time ago, you could choose between dozens of ISPs. That is no longer true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This has been the weakest day of action I could imagine. I thought sites were going to be throttled. Turns out its just some color changes and, oh, reddit has a fancy "slow-loading" gif for their website name. A real wake-up call!

<comment><USER15> This is exactly what I thought.

Went to reddit.com...where's the Net Neutrality protest? Oh I just realized they made their logo a gif that looks like it loads slow...and they made a post...

Went to google.com...the doodle is unrelated and I saw nothing about net neutrality on the site...

Went to mozilla.org and I see absolutely nothing about it. I feel like I must be missing something here.

Hackernews...looks the same but slightly grayed. Oh the black bar is a link, didn't realize that. But no messages or anything obvious.

LinkedIn.com maybe? Nothing

Twitter? They have a hashtag that's trending...that's it.

Facebook? I see nothing. Not even a trending topic.

This is a very luke warm day of technology companies protesting net neutrality. I expected _at least_ a tiny blurb on a homepage SOMEWHERE. So far Netflix and DuckDuckGo are the only large sites that I've notice actually put _something_ on their homepage.

<comment><USER16> Agreed, this is a very poor showing of support from major websites.

I remember Wikipedia doing a "black out" day, along with several other websites years back. If you visited the web page, all you saw was a black page and a quick explanation that the web could be censored if legislation were to pass.

I've visited several participants' sites to see nothing. GitHub didn't have a single thing, Wikipedia: nothing, and Google (or Alphabet) isn't even listed on the list of participants [0].

[0] [https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants](https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants)

<comment><USER17> The Wikipedia community seems to have a strong dislike [0][1][2] for anything like the SOPA blackout, partially as it's not as black-and-white as SOPA, and partially because Wikipedia directly wouldn't be affected (their site is pretty fast).

Worth noting that Wikipedia Zero [3] exists, and has been taking flak for not being the most NN-friendly initiative.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_162#Net_neutrality_maybe_in_great_danger)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(propos...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_\(proposals\)/Archive_140#Is_anything_happening_with_Wikipedia_in_relation_to_the_July_12_Net_Neutrality_day_of_action)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(propos...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_\(proposals\)/Archive_139#Wikipedia_and_Net_Neutrality)

[3] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- switch/wp/2014/11/25...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Net Neutrality" in its final form did not solve or fix any problems with the Internet. The definition of "Net Neutrality" is poorly defined, too vague and does not have any proposed legislation attached to "fix" things. Even when new rules were implemented, ISPs still throttled torrents and manipulated traffic. The only way to fix the Internet is to do so from a technical perspective, not by adding more regulations that ISPs won't obey (they work that into their business model). The "Internet" has never been free and has always been controlled by a handful of entities. The only fix for the Internet is if everyone actively participates in the Internet's infrastructure and we work to create technologies that thwart active threats from ISPs or that gives ISPs competition.

;TLDR I don't support Net Neutrality.

<comment><USER19> I've mentioned a number of times before, but I'm actually advocating to my friends against their participation today for the reason that I believe, if the Evil ISP acts in a crumby way, that it will create demand for better service. And I think that's the only way to get to a Mesh Internet For The People, By The People.

My position is that: We don't need big pipes (or millions of hours of television piped to us every month), we need the interfaces and hardware for connecting with each other.

<comment><USER20> Comcast is already despised by its customers. There is already demand for better service but most people don't have any other option. It is naive to think that the loss of net neutrality will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for Comcast.

<comment><USER21> Unpopular opinion: I've never had a problem with Comcast and I loved the fact that they allowed users (in my experience) in the same residence cash in on promos.

promo ends -> cancel plan -> new roommate signs on.

<comment><USER22> So you're happy that Comcast allows you to not grossly overpay for their service if you have enough roommates? Kind of a weird endorsement.

<comment><USER21> I'm happy that they allow me to grossly underpay for their service, if I have enough roommates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I know this is "old news" now, but it's very fascinating that Google is suddenly so concerned about "the open internet" 4 days after EME was ratified (a proposal that they authored and forced other browsers into supporting thanks to their enormous browser share).

It feels like Google (and other companies for that matter) are only concerned about "the open internet" when it benefits their bottom line. In fact, I'm not convinced that Google _does_ care. For SOPA and PIPA they actually did a (lukewarm) blackout of their site for the day of action. Wikipedia _shut down_ on that day. Where has all of the enthusiasm gone?

<comment><USER24> Yeah, wow, Google has written an email to a powerless online community. Bravo, that'll show Ajit!

I remember the mass freakout when Wikipedia shut down--journalists and congressional staffers suddenly couldn't do their jobs and suddenly it was front page news, not just a John Oliver rant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I don't understand the logic of ISP's throttling certain sites based on the traffic to those sites.

As a consumer on ISP's last mile lines, I make a series of TCP requests and I expect responses. Fill my pipes with those responses as best you can and charge me for the privilege. If you're not making enough money on that, charge me more for the bandwidth.

Market-wise, why would an ISP anything else than fill my pipe with what I'm asking for?

An ISP should make all the money it needs to make off my service subscription. It's not too far of a leap for me to imagine U.S. laws being changed that restrict ISP's to only being able to charge the end-user for their subscriptions with heavily regulated flat fees for peering arrangements and co-location services placed near the consumer.

The obvious shenanagans that are ramping up here will eventually lead to a massive consumer backlash and a regulatory hammer coming down. People are not going to forget what the open internet looked like.

<comment><USER26> You're correct to ask these questions. The truth is that the entire motivation behind Net Neutrality is predicated on hypothetical behavior by an ISP that nobody has ever actually observed in reality for the exact reasons you describe.

<comment><USER27> ISPs have a lot to win with keeping their monopolies as it is.

Given the amount of alarmism it actually seems to me there is heavy propaganda advocating for the status quo, for some reason, perhaps they want further regulations that can be done more easily through net neutrality. Not sure.

<comment><USER26> Once you establish that the FCC can regulate the internet, you can do all kinds of very opaque regulation that is difficult to change (e.g. other guy needs to control White House and Congress or sue the government and win).

Heavier regulations usually favor established players who can engage in regulatory capture, to shape the new rules to prevent future competition from smaller companies and firms that don't even exist yet. Often times they cloak this motivation with justifications that sound uncontroversial and difficult to object to.

I don't know specifically what the real goal is here with Net Neutrality, but that's the sort of thing that happens in other industries all the time. Often in terms of "safety" or "helping the environment."

<comment><USER25> Your comments boil down to "distrust of government/more crony capitalism" message for me.

I agree, if that is where your heart is at. U.S. government is very dysfunctional. Corporations buy up representatives, regulatory agencies are politicized and made into paper tigers or weapons to attack enemies with, etc.

I don't expect that to change in the U.S., and in fact I expect deregulation and a non-neutral net real soon. Then, we'll begin the slow slide into the nightmare scenario where ISP's can extract more rents from both websites and users. Extorting fees from websites for accessing the fast lane to the users will be the favorite way of simultaneously increasing profits and wounding competing media companies that don't control their own last mile fiefdoms.

When the quality of service dips too low and the costs rise too high, I believe the result will be a populist wave of anger sweeping over these companies. They will be broken up into smaller companies based on function, municipal ISP's will get established to handle the last mile, and there will be harsh regulations put on what ISP's can legally do with data flowing over their pipes.

My frustration with the net neutrality folks (probably similar to yours) is their insistence that we "REGULATE IT" where no specifics are given and is not really a plan, leaving things open to mischief. The devil in the details here is establishing what is reasonable and fair for an ISP to do -- and we then fairness hug the ISP's to death.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: Why He's Rejecting Net Neutrality [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28)

<comment><USER29> I'd like to point out that even if you disagree with this video that hearing it straight from the source is valuable. If you want to convince Ajit Pai that he's wrong, knowing what his current (public) opinion truly is (rather than just someone's strawman) makes it _way_ easier.

<comment><USER30> Well, if he really believes it. I high doubt most people in these positions believe a fraction of what they say. They're being backed by major telecom firms to promote a narrative.

<comment><USER31> There is a supported narrative either way. At its heart the net neutrality argument is really a media versus delivery argument. You could arguably eliminate substantial amounts of network congestion, and thus the need for telecoms to throttle in the first place, by eliminating online advertising and data tracking.

Imagine, instead, if this were a choice between net neutrality or SOPA. If you had to choose one which would you find the be the lesser evil? In the end you are either playing the game media wants or the way telecoms want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> As a New Zealander, I find it extraordinarily inappropriate that global infrastructure like the Internet is being shaped by the whims of US politics and corporate culture. The Internet is a global network of global concern and it should be above the manoeuvring of Republicans and American Internet providers

<comment><USER12> Are there any examples of this happening?

<comment><USER32> What do you mean? I don't see the international community having ANY say on Net Neutrality. All the actors in the debate are American. What more do you want?

<comment><USER33> Each country faces their own NN battle, and any competent authority studies the examples of other nations, or they ask experts, who study the outcomes in other countries.

Including telecom lobbyists, who study how misinformation and complex arguments can help them win political capital to push their ideas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Net neutrality just helps the status quo, and forces the "evil greedy ISPs" to take your money. Yeah let's show them by giving them money and no competition to their business... wait.

Vote for less regulation, not just getting rid of NN but getting rid of the monopolies that exist at the local level.

<comment><USER34> Yeah! Once we remove all regulations, ISPs will be forced to compete with all the little ISPs eagerly waiting to provide service!

Net Neutrality does nothing to hinder competition. In fact, we need _more_ regulation to force competition.

It's because of a lack of regulation that my city tricked into selling their amazing municipal broadband service to Comcast.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Now if only this were linked from the bottom of google.com .

<comment><USER36> Or better yet, from their logo. Like they did for the SOPA and PIPA Internet blackout: [https://www.google.com/doodles/sopa- pipa](https://www.google.com/doodles/sopa-pipa).

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> If you use Cloudflare you can install the Battle for the Net widget: [https://www.cloudflare.com/apps/net- neutrality](https://www.cloudflare.com/apps/net-neutrality)

<comment><USER38> Thanks for mentioning this. Very painless way to raise some awareness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Am I going blind, or is Google not listed here amongst the companies listed as participants behind battleforthenet.com?

[https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants](https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants)

Why, Google?

Yes I see they sponsored [https://netneutrality.internetassociation.org/action/](https://netneutrality.internetassociation.org/action/) but why not get behind both sites?

</comment><comment><USER40> Can I contribute without being an US citizen? It seems to be an US-internal issue, but considering that most of the net belongs to the US, this might actually be a far more global question than is legally coverable/definable by US law.

<comment><USER41> Good question. You could donate to the ACLU or Fight For the Future.

Also, certainly being active online and discussing it openly helps.

I think you'd want to refrain from commenting on the FCC website or otherwise pretending to be American. While there are anti-NN folks doing impersonation, it's not a good behavior to copy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I can't even enter the USA without a visa that is expensive, hard to get and doesn't guarantee entry but I'm getting all these net neutrality PSAs today telling me to send letters to FCC and Congress... I'm supportive of the idea itself but it's a bit funny and stupid, the Americano-centrism.

<comment><USER43> Are you seeing this on any non-American sites?

<comment><USER42> No, but I still can't call FCC or Congress (or enter USA easily..) so it's completely useless for me to see that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> So glad I live in Utah -- where we have X-mission Pete Ashdown is a huge supporter of EFF and Net Neutrality and anti-NSA -- and Google fiber - google's a big supporter as well. Loved X-mission, but new landlord only has google fiber installed so using that, but both had 1GB connections..

Two great ISP's who WON'T be doing shenanigans like comcast/att when net neutrality is destroyed.

Too bad more people in America don't have good choices... I do think though the biggest thing they could do for 'action' \--would be every Monday block all comcast/att users from using Google, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Reddit in protest... till the ISPs cry and beg and plead w/ the FCC to re-instate net- neurality.

If it's legal to prioritize websites over others... then it's legal for those same websites to prioritize certain ISPs over others...

</comment><comment><USER45> The marketing for Net Neutrality is very poor. Just asked a few non-technical friends about it. A few responded with "Do you believe everything you read on the Internet?". Now if all their favorite websites were shutdown for a day, that would get everyones attention.

<comment><USER46> The worst is when a non-technical person tries to bring up the Fairness Doctrine, as if net neutrality is in any way related to the government regulating content. But it is a handy way to identify people who get their news from bullshit sources.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> _In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No. 17-108), much is made of the rapid growth of the Internet under the former "light-touch" regulatory regime. The notice overlooks that this was also an environment in which competition among many Internet service providers could and did flourish._

 _Since then, the provision of connectivity has consolidated among only a few very large companies, which among them have strongly oligopolic power to enforce whatever conditions they please upon their customers, both residential and commercial._

 _In the late-1990s, early-2000s environment of healthy competition among Internet service providers, utility-style regulation of ISPs, such as that here under consideration of repeal, was not a necessary measure._

 _However, in the current strongly oligopolic environment, only the regulatory power of the United States Government can continue to provide and enforce sufficient oversight to maintain a semblance of free market behavior._

 _Internet-powered entrepreneurship greatly benefits the US economy. The small, and occasionally large, businesses thus created have an outsized economic impact in terms of taxes paid and jobs created. Absent a true free market, or even the regulatory semblance of one, for Internet connectivity, these businesses may well find themselves severely hampered in their ability to earn revenue, with concomitant negative effect on their ability to contribute to our economy._

 _As such, I must strongly urge the new regulatory regime proposed in this filing not be adopted._

 _I thank you very kindly for your time and your consideration, and trust that you will decide in that fashion which you regard to best serve the interests of your constituents and of the nation which you serve._

(Also, the "Battle for the Net" folks would have done well to hire a UX designer - or perhaps to hire a different one. The lack of any clear confirmation that one's message has been sent fails to inspire confidence. Perhaps there's an email confirmation that has yet to arrive, but...)

</comment><comment><USER48> While I don't have a good grasp on the larger issue, I hope we can protect small players from being squeezed. In my limited understanding, there are really two separate things here: Comcast vs Youtube and Comcast vs startup. As I understand it, Comcast gets mad that they have to invest in infrastructure so people can watch Youtube. They think Youtube is free-riding on their infrastructure. Comcast is envious of Youtube's profits and eyeballs. So Comcast wants to squeeze money out of Youtube. A battle between giants.

The other issue is that small sites including startups could get throttled almost incidentally in this war. They don't use much bandwidth, being small, but if Comcast enacts some "bizdev" process where it takes six months of negotiations to get into the fast lane, any deal below $1M is probably not worth their time.

This is how cell phone software worked before the iPhone - get permission before you can develop (IIRC). If we end up with fast-lane preferential pricing, it should really be available to the smallest players. Ideally it should be free, but the Apple app store model would work - $99/year for fast lane access until your bandwidth is really significant. But would the individual have to pay $99 to every major ISP out there?

</comment><comment><USER49> I didn't see any Net Neutrality related banner at: [https://google.com](https://google.com)

So Google didn't do what they could here.

<comment><USER41> Agreed. I think it makes them look a bit complicit to not make their stance front and center as they did for SOPA with the blackout. I understand that companies don't want to get involved in politics, but, this is something that directly impacts the future of their business.

Long term company health ought to be interested in maintaining net neutrality. Those seeking short term profits would prefer the ability to gut existing company reputation in order to line executives' pockets. I believe Google is still long-term focused, but their lukewarm action here gives me some doubts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> One thing I don't understand about net neutrality. Say I'm a toll road. I built the road when cars were relatively small and light. Now, some cars are getting really heavy and big (think semi trucks) and are the majority of my traffic. Because of this, they beat up the road and cause more congestion. So I want to repair the road and/or add more lanes by increasing the toll on these trucks. But all the trucking companies are complaining and preventing me from doing it, thus ultimately hurting the small personal cars that want to zip through.

Obviously this is an analogy to net neutrality, so why is this reasonable situation fundamentally different? In a free market, shouldn't I be able to increase the tolls on my private infrastructure for those that put the most stress on it?

(Now I will say, the fact that there's only one toll road option for many people is anti-competitive and against the free market, but that's not this topic)

<comment><USER51> Packets don't damage network infrastructure, and lack of competition is not a different topic.

ISPs' monopoly on access to broadband customers allows them to extract rents based on the marginal value of each transaction. There's no reason we as a society should allow this.

Imagine if the cost of your water supply depended on your companies profits. That's what we're talking about here.

</comment></comment><comment> chroem- It's disingenuous for big business to try to frame this as a grassroots movement for freedom on the internet when they were completely silent about illegal NSA spying. The only difference between NSA spying and losing net neutrality is that without net neutrality their profits might be threatened.

<comment><USER52> As a fellow non American all I can do is twiddle my thumbs. Perhaps if they addressed how we allies could assist and help that would be great, but it does indeed feel like a parochial dispute which we are not invited to take part but have to hear the shouts nonetheless

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Help Preserve the Open Internet: Repeal and Replace Google AMP

</comment><comment><USER54> Elon Musk to the rescue... (again)

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14952904/elon-musk- spacex...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14952904/elon-musk-spacex- boeing-oneweb-satellite-constellation-network)

<comment><USER41> I'm skeptical this wouldn't end up being like Mark's plan to give free "internet" access to India, where "the internet" is selected websites.

Anyway I kind of doubt Musk's plan comes to fruition before more threats to Net Neutrality come up. Right now we need to address it at a policy level. New ways of accessing internet won't prevent people from trying to monopolize and control it.

<comment><USER55> > free "internet" access to India, where "the internet" is selected websites.

Did you confuse India with China?

<comment><USER41> Nope,

[https://www.cnet.com/news/why-india-doesnt-want-free- basics/](https://www.cnet.com/news/why-india-doesnt-want-free-basics/)

<comment><USER55> The free basics plan proposed by Facebook was rejected by the telecom regulatory authority of India due to the protests from people. This was a standadlone incident which happened in 2016. Later 2016 saw the introduction of Jio 4G service provider which began to provide super cheap 4G service for the masses (approx 5$ for 28GB and it was free when it launched) which made other telecoms to drop the prices massively. Apart from some sites which Government has censored I have experienced no major problems with India's Internet. I even traveled from the southern part of India to the northern part in train enjoying uninterrupted 4G Internet earlier this year(Around 2400Km). We are happy how India's ISPs are going and don't have much to complain. Thank you.

<comment><USER41> > Apart from some sites which Government has censored I have experienced no > major problems with India's Internet.

Good luck with that.

<comment><USER55> To be clear the websites blocked in India by the government are majorly piracy sites. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_India)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Follow the money. Do you really think the biggest corporations in America support Net Neutrality because of some altruistic need for things to be "fair"?

</comment><comment><USER57> If anyone would like to ask more direct questions about Net Neutrality, the ACLU is having an AMA on reddit right now [https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/6mvhn3/we_are_the_acl...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/6mvhn3/we_are_the_aclu_ask_us_anything_about_net/)

</comment><comment><USER58> Net neutrality (government's involvement in the Internet) sucks

[https://www.google.de/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-...](https://www.google.de/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these- are-the-arguments-against-net-neutrality-and-why-theyre-wrong/amp/)

</comment><comment><USER59> When everybody relies on the internet, even moreso than phones, it's a public utility that needs protection from the greed-feeders.

</comment><comment><USER52> Forgive me as a European but are there companies who oppose net neutrality? As in are there HN readers who work for them? If so, who are they and what are their reasons? Is the issue like same sex marriage where the only opposition is so laughably out of date or are there nuances?

<comment><USER60> One reason is that a lot of these tech companies make a bulk of their money from selling content, which is in large part dependent on production houses that are run by cable companies anyway. So on the one hand Netflix will make a show of supporting net neutrality, but will discriminate among different internet users (vpn users), by denying them access.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> The only real way to ensure net neutrality is to ignore the bullshit and implement a distributed secure internet.

Net neutrality could be forced into place, regardless of the laws passed by Congress or the malfeasance of the ISPs.

I see no reason why Google would ever support such a thing.

<comment><USER62> The US government probably would fight such a thing too. They already fight municipal broadband.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Consider this your friendly reminder that Clinton would've preserved the NN rules set up under Obama, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion had she been elected.

Especially consider this the next time a friend says 'every politician is the same,' or whatever.

</comment><comment><USER64> Another channel to consider, but much more of a long tail play is to put some effort into the state level political races. Many politicians with the exception of wealthier business people get started at the state level.

</comment><comment><USER65> Greetings from Europe where we have er neutrality. Good luck to my American friends with voting for a sane government in 3 years. Maybe there are some remainings of the country you could have been.

</comment><comment><USER66> Does anyone have actual legislation written up that I can point my Congresspeople to? Is there a bill that can be introduced that will accomplish the objective of "Net Neutrality"?

</comment><comment><USER67> If this turns out to be big amongst other things, then some "big" news will come up in next few days to cover it up.

At least that how they would do it in Philippines.

</comment><comment><USER68> Google trying to preserve the Open Internet... yeah right.

</comment><comment><USER69> Off topic: this is a very nice site. It's clean, easy to read (iPhone and iPad), and I think it makes good use of Google's design language.

</comment><comment><USER70> (This comment is a little bit disorganized, so I apologize for that.)

Far too many people don't seem to understand the arguments against net neutrality as it has been proposed... There's been much made about the "astroturfing" and automated comments on the FCC website that go against net neutrality-- but what about the reverse? John Oliver doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Reddit and HN provide warped perspectives on the issue.

Don't you guys realize that no matter what policy is chosen, someone is getting screwed and someone going to profit? Don't get me wrong, the ISPs are not exactly benevolent organizations. But I don't think they're evil either. Plain and simple, if you think this is a cut-and-dry, good-versus-evil, conglomerates-versus-littleguy issue, I think you're not hearing both sides of the issue. This issue is between content providers that serve far more bits than they take in, and ISPs, and there are billions of dollars on both sides.

In other words, don't think for a second that this is about protecting small internet websites from having to pay ransom. That's not what is going to happen. The only people who are going to be squeezed are the giants like Google, Netflix, etc., and it's no surprise that these are the people who are making such a fuss about it today.

The particular event that made me reconsider net neutrality was digging into the details of the Comcast/Netflix/Level3 fiasco a couple years ago. Everything I had heard about that situation made it sound to me like Comcast was simply demanding ransom. The reality of the situation is that L3 and Netflix acted extremely recklessly in how they made their deals, and IMO deserved everything that came to them. Much is made about "eyeball ISPs" and the power it gives them. In reality, I think Netflix has more power in swaying consumers, and I think they used that power to bail themselves out of a sticky situation by badmouthing Comcast.

I don't see how compensatory peering agreements would work out well in a net neutral world. Specifically, the FCC proposal for Title II classification (paraphrasing here) said that the FCC would step in when it believed one party was acting unfairly. It is far too open-ended, doesn't list any criteria for what that means, and it's not the FCCs job anyway, the FTC should be doing that.

But in general I don't think net neutrality is a good idea. I think that people are out of touch with internet access in rural parts of the US, and I don't think NN is beneficial for that situation at all. My grandmother pays $30/mo for internet access that she barely uses, and I don't think it's right to enshrine into law that Comcast can't offer her a plan where she pays $5/mo instead for limited access to the few sites she uses.

As a bandwidth-hogging internet user, a lack of net neutrality will probably mean that I will pay more. But maybe that's how it is supposed to be. The internet didn't turn out to be what the academics once hoped it would be. And that's okay. The internet should serve everyone, however they want to use it, and the market should be built around that principle-- not around decades-old cypherpunk ideals.

I think it's incredible that behemoths like Google have the nerve to paint this as if they care about an open internet. It's obvious that their dominance is what makes an open internet irrelevant.

<comment><USER71> Network neutrality probably would not be as big of an issue if ISPs in America were not quasi-monopolies. In a market with healthy competition, it seems much less likely that the only choice available would be some tiered, managed entity that throttles back "non-favored" traffic -- perhaps that option would be available at the lower end, but a "power user" market with net neutrality practices would probably exist as well.

Unfortunately, many markets are served by only one high speed ISP in the United States. This makes the net neutrality fears somewhat more realistic.

I will say that from this angle, I put quite a bit more weight on correcting other anti-competitive practices pushed into law by communications companies. Things like states banning and suing municipal broadband efforts come to mind. The American marketplace for Internet ISPs as a result is quite distorted, certainly far from an open, competitive marketplace.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> I'm just bummed Google didn't change their banner like the SOPA days. Big miss there.

</comment><comment><USER73> Is this just an issue in the USA?

</comment><comment><USER74> I have never understood the need for net neutrality. That doesn't mean we don't need it, it means that no one has ever explained the need to me in a way that makes sense. Give me real world examples. What has any ISP done that would violate Net Neutrality that I would object to?

<comment><USER72> > What has any ISP done that would violate Net Neutrality that I would object > to?

Here's a list:

[https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality- vio...](https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations- brief-history)

Excuse me for being blunt, but you're being willfully ignorant if you ask this question. A simple Google search of _the exact wording of your question_ reveals this [1]

> "Internet providers have attempted to throttle traffic by type or by user > (Comcast in 2007), have imposed arbitrary and secret caps on data (AT&T > 2011-2014), hidden fees that had no justification or documentation (Comcast > in 2016), and tried to give technical advantages to their own services over > those of competitors (AT&T in 2016). These attempts were only revealed in > retrospect once they were discovered and lawsuits filed."

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments- ag...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments-against-net- neutrality-and-why-theyre-wrong/)

<comment><USER74> Thanks for the first link, it's a pretty good summary of the arguments for. My question would be why don't most of those fall under fraud statutes.

The second link is the example of crap I've read about the issue that never resonated with me, please don't tell why arguments against are bad, tell me why I need it the the first place.

And calling me "willfully ignorant" is a good example of why net neutrality has failed to get wider support. I'm a full-time developer, I do read a lot about a lot of issues, but I'm also busy with a full life. Guess what, my governments tax, drug, school funding, and police policies get more of my attention than a poorly explained argument for limits on ISPs.

Advocates should learn to tell their audience clearly and concisely why Net Neutrality benefits them. And without being dismissive or condescending. I mean, only if they want to build more support.

<comment><USER72> > Thanks for the first link, it's a pretty good summary of the arguments for. > My question would be why don't most of those fall under fraud statutes.

Because they're not fraud unless we make laws regulating such behavior. And, lawmaking can begin with setting proper FCC policy.

> And calling me "willfully ignorant" is a good example of why net neutrality > has failed to get wider support. I'm a full-time developer, I do read a lot > about a lot of issues, but I'm also busy with a full life.

Dude, if you're a developer, I'm not going to let you off the hook so easily. You should be familiar with the arguments, both for and against. Whether you agree with one side or the other is up to you-but you should at least be aware of the issues.

I'm sure you've told someone to Google answers to a simple question before. This is no different. I got those links by Googling your question.

Generally speaking, the concise arguments are to spread awareness among non- tech folks. They are a dumbed down version of the details. The old CP Grey video is good [1], as are recent graphics showing what could realistically happen [2].

[1] [https://youtu.be/wtt2aSV8wdw](https://youtu.be/wtt2aSV8wdw)

[2] [https://i.redd.it/ehh1nypob79z.jpg](https://i.redd.it/ehh1nypob79z.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Google, Amazon, Netflix vs. ATT, Verizon, Comcast.

Monopolies vs monopolies.

Where's the freedom for us?

</comment><comment><USER76> All this going and Darpa wants to put ethernet jacks into our brains.

</comment><comment><USER77> Funny thing is, I can't even visit blog.google from China

</comment><comment><USER78> Sorry Google (and FB, Amazon, etc.) this doesn't actually count as taking action. Not even a single link on their home page. An obscure post on a blog won't do shit. Let's stop pretending that you want net neutrality, Google, et al. Day of action my fucking ass.

<comment><USER79> Google is pissed because the Internet is now under Title II making it nearly impossible for them to lay their fiber along public roads anymore. You know how to really fuck over Comcast? Allow google to bring Fiber to every major city. But they can't because regulation.

<comment><USER80> Then maybe they, or Chairman Pai or someone, can talk about how to protect net neutrality in some way other than Title II.

Title II was instituted basically as a last resort. And nobody has been coming forward saying, "Okay.. we have a plan here to undo the Title II but still preserve net neutrality."

<comment><USER81> To be fair, the previous FCC tried that. The courts struck it down and told them if they wanted to regulated ISPs in that manner they had to go Title II.

Non-Title II regulation of ISPs would require an act of Congress, a Republican-held congress with a Republican President. Good luck with that. :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Simple way to understand Net Neutrality, look at the way AT&T prioritizes DirecTV Content on Mobile. It should be illegal, but well

</comment><comment><USER83> I am starting a small business. One of the decisions I must account for is network performance versus price. Perhaps I choose to partner with a company that my network deprioritizes. I am already at a disadvantage because I cannot afford to run my own lines or peer like large corporations.

These same corporations can invest or purchase smaller new buisness and enhance their portfolio. Some already support network neutrality as they understand this.

I know my buisness depends upon my own effort. But I am sure many other small buisness owners face the same difficulty.

I know it is hard to be fair and objective in allowing access to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Thanks for the article.

<comment><USER84> "Boo hoo it's so hard to do business!" is not going to cut it, I'm afraid. The government and all citizens do not exist to enable you to do business. The policy should be what's right, and it should preferably follow the basic principles of modern society: free market.

Whether NN enables competition or kills it is debatable. But difficulty in business is not a reason.

<comment><USER85> Imo ISPs shouldn't be allowed to be a free market as they are monopolies. Whether they should be codified as monopolies like electricity/water is debatable. They absolutely should not be treated like a restaurant where you can just go next door if they start screwing you over though.

<comment><USER84> > they are monopolies

If being granted monopoly status is the problem, let's fix that. Instead of treating it as a given and imposing unneeded regulation on top.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> I am starting a small business. One of the decisions I must account for is network performance versus price. Perhaps I choose to partner with a company that my network deprioritizes. I am already at a disadvantage because I cannot afford to run my own lines cross state like large corporations.

These same corporations can invest or purchase smaller new buisness and enhance their portfolio. Some already support network neutrality as they understand this.

I know my buisness depends upon my own effort. But I am sure many other small buisness owners face the same difficulty.

I know it is hard to be fair and objective in allowing access to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

</comment><comment><USER86> I see a lot of shills posting their anti-Network Neutrality stuff here, so I wanted to chime in reminding folks of a few things: Telco's were forced at one point to share phone lines. Remember all those DSL startups? Remember speakeasy? This was called local loop unbundling. What did the Telco's do? everything possible to break or interfere with these startup service provides. The telco's felt that it was "their lines". Customers were angry and eventually local loop unbundling was dismantled. Ironically - France, South Korea and other nations copied this idea for their high speed network providers - and it actually worked! You can get high speed internet in these countries from a variety of providers. Competition! If the FTC/FCC wasn't completely under regulatory capture, and telcos like AT&T were punished for this behaviour and competitors were allowed to provide services over last mile connections then yes, we might not need something like Network Neutrality. Instead we have entrenched ISP monopolies and no competition. So we need consumer protections like TitleII and Network Neutrality. We also need community owned fiber networks springing up everywhere, which then over time could lessen the need for regulation as market forces would prevail. However, entrenched monopolies like Comcast and AT&T have to be shackled. It's the only way.

<comment><USER87> Accusations of astroturfing and shillage aren't allowed here unless you have evidence, and someone else having a different opinion doesn't count as evidence. Please don't post like this to HN.

For those who want to read further about HN's approach to this, there's another thread from today at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14753932](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14753932) and links to much more from there.

<comment><USER86> my apologies. I wasn't aware of this rule.

<comment><USER87> Sorry about that—it's going into the site guidelines, just very slowly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> Serious question, could someone please educate me.

1) How is Net Neutrality different from a slippery slope to communism?

2) During the President Obama years, my ISP in the U.S. offered 3 different tiers of service at 3 different prices. How is that pure "net neutrality"? (this was similar to the situation where in the U.S., rich lefty-liberals don't send their kids to public schools... but want poor conservatives to send their kids to public schools, rich lefty-liberals don't want public housing built in their neighborhoods... etc. etc... but still want to virtue signal that they're in favor of public education and public housing)

<comment><USER87> We've banned this account for starting ideological flamewars. If you keep doing this it will eventually get your main account banned as well.

<comment><USER89> Out of curiosity, what would banning the main account do?

I guess I understand if the threat of losing it is the impetus to behave well.

I have to imagine it would just drive the user to create more throwaways, though.

<comment><USER47> Only those of us with the 'showdead' profile setting enabled will see them, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> This day is a joke.

<comment><USER90> I know that HN hates "unproductive comments", but I feel my comment is as likely as effective of "raising net neutrality awareness" as the silly grey logo bar topping this website right now.

<comment><USER90> I'm glad this comment sits at the bottom of this post. It's reflective of how the zeitgeist actually cares about this issue.

The Battle For the Net website mentions a vast range of online companies who apparently stood in solidarity to take action on this day.

* Github: a blog post displayed on your feed.

* Etsy: Nothing.

* Kickstarter: Nothing.

* Netflix: Nothing.

* Twitter: Nothing.

* Vimeo: A featured video on the landing page.

* Reddit: A tiny blurred logo.

* Hacker News: A grey bar!

* Mozilla: Nothing.

* OkCupid: Nothing.

What a great display!

<comment><USER91> > * Mozilla: Nothing.

Really not sure what you're talking about here.

Along with this blog post: [https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/07/11/defending-net- neutr...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/07/11/defending-net-neutrality- day-action/)

There's a snippet on about:home about Net Neutrality for every Firefox user:

[https://ffp4g1ylyit3jdyti1hqcvtb-wpengine.netdna- ssl.com/wp-...](https://ffp4g1ylyit3jdyti1hqcvtb-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/07/FX.png)

We've got a form here to make it easy to submit your comments to the FCC: [https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality- comments](https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality-comments)

We even voiced 9hrs worth of Net Neutrality comments that had already been submitted: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=twksX_S3vkg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=twksX_S3vkg)

The most recent episode of the IRL Podcast is centered completely around Net Neutrality: [https://irlpodcast.org/episode2/](https://irlpodcast.org/episode2/)

<comment><USER90> Sorry I wasn't able to discover that podcast, youtube video, blogpost and form. Thanks for your efforts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> Net neutrality has been a buzzword for a while now. Large new companies like to harp on it just for views, and they don't really explain to viewers just what losing it will mean. FOX News's motto "We report. You Decide" makes it evident that large networks don't care about the validity of information, just that it generates the largest amount of revenue for them. Companies (and individuals) with money won't care about net neutrality--they can pay their way around it. But the casual user can't afford that, and they aren't being educated as to what this means for them. We need to get large news networks to accurately report the situation and how consumers can help.

</comment><comment><USER93> I understand why tech companies and VCs want net neutrality. But this protest is what is wrong with Silicon Valley "culture". It's incredibly out of touch with reality.

Are we really being asked to take this hill? Why? By whom?

History will record the hundreds of thousands of children who will die of the current-and-present famine affecting East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. It will only exacerbate the current, historic, and costly human migration to Europe.

This is a matter of life and death for millions. Though, unfortunately, the cost can only be measured in human lives: [https://www.oxfam.org/en/emergencies/famine-and-hunger- crisi...](https://www.oxfam.org/en/emergencies/famine-and-hunger-crisis)

<comment><USER72> How ironic. Without net neutrality, you might have more difficulty raising awareness about your cause of choice- famine. Yet, here you are railing against it.

<comment><USER93> Is it possible I'm railing against something other than network neutrality, itself?</comment></comment></comment>


English Proficiency Index - <AUTHOR> http://www.ef.com/epi <comment><USER3> I must admit I'm surprised at some of these results. Being French with Japanese in-laws, I've had ample opportunity to compare both populations' level of english and while French people are by no mean excellent, I found that it was rare for Japanese people to speak _any_ english. Is my experience truly that different from real life?

<comment><USER4> If I had to guess, I'd put it down to whereabouts in France you live. If you're in the south, it is probably more advantageous to learn Spanish or Italian as your first foreign language. Likewise German in the east/southeast.

Whereas Japan is really only focusing on English with something like 8 years of mandatory education now.

I'd also call into question the methodology used in determining competence in this study. I've found that French people will tend to have much better conversational English as the languages are quite similiar, whereas Japanese people can be quite shy and hesitant. If this study is conducted as a written test however, you could easily find the Japanese taking the lead.

<comment><USER5> France - the French have a very long history of feeling that the French language has a prestige status in the world. English is now a fairly large force in the world, but it wasn't always. Whether French is still a prestige/world language or not now, the French are incredibly proud of their language. The incentive to learn English, one of their languages largest competitors, is just not there.

<comment><USER3> I do not feel the last part of your statement is at all true. France is absolutely proud and protective of its language, but is trying _very_ hard to teach English to its population.

France has mandatory English lessons. 7 years when I was going through my education, but I believe it's closer to 10 now - I know you can start English lessons at 8 but am not sure whether you _have_ to.

Additionally, when I was going through higher education, it was next to impossible to avoid English lessons - that's easily another 3 to 5 years.

Put together, 20 years ago, I went through _11 years_ of English lessons through a fairly standard cursus, 7 of which mandatory. And as I said, it's gotten better (or worse, depending on your point of view) since then.

I'm not pretending that most French people have excellent English skills, but I do feel it's unfair to paint France as dragging its feet when it comes to learning foreign languages, English in particular.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't understand their methodology or what those numbers really mean. Anyway, you can take the test, supposedly in under an hour, here [https://www.efset.org/en](https://www.efset.org/en)

Yes, it's under an hour: 2x25 minutes with an optional break. For some reason they ask for a phone number later. It might have been optional. Spam is opt- out though so beware.

<comment><USER7> I gave the phone number "0".

</comment></comment><comment> V-2 It's interesting to confront the data with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English- sp...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English- speaking_population)

European ranking according to EF EPI vs. percent of English speakers according to Wiki

(No particular reason for filtering it down to just the European table - <USER2> simply happened to start like so and only realized it after a while)

VERY HIGH PROFICIENCY 1\. Sweden (86%) 2\. Norway (nd) 3\. Netherlands (90%) 4\. Estonia (50%) 5\. Denmark (86%) 6\. Austria (73%) 7\. Finland (70%)

HIGH PROFICIENCY 8\. Poland (33%) 9\. Hungary (20%) 10\. Slovenia (59%) 11\. Belgium (59%) 14\. Germany (64%) 15\. Latvia (46%) 16\. Switzerland (61%) 17\. Portugal (27%)

MODERATE PROFICIENCY 18\. Slovakia (26%) 20\. Czech Republic (27%) [...]

Clear anomalies are the post-communist countries such as Poland and Hungary. Personally I was surprised seeing my home country (Poland) rank that high. Good command of English is relatively rare, especially among older generations who typically did not learn English at school, and up to this day it is taught badly (in my opinion).

<comment><USER8> Having spent 6 months in Poland I have to say I'm a bit surprised by this too. In my experience a lot of Polish people still have issues with english.

<comment> V-2 Most people who speak fluent English learned it out of their own initiative, outside of school, by attending courses or taking private lessons. Not everybody's parents could afford paying for it, though.

English at school isn't taught properly as I said, or at least it wasn't back in the 90s (I was born in 1981). I suppose things must have improved since then, but not radically.

Most English teachers were requalified Russian teachers back then, since Russian used to be a compulsory subject under communist regime and they'd be out of work had they not switched to English. There were hardly any qualified English teachers, so, no competition for the job.

You can imagine the outcome. What's more, the didactic method was terribly obsolete. As early as in primary school we would have to memorize loads of grammar rules for past perfect continuous and whatnot, while lacking the most basic vocabulary.

Older generation (+40 yo) never even had that, and living behind the iron curtain one did not have a strong incentive to learn English in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I agree with the other commentors that the samples must be non-random in some way. Italy and China being in the same bucket ought to give it away.

I'm certain this is just the proficiency of people who happened to take their test and therefore is completely meaningless.

</comment><comment><USER7> Austria in the list of very high proficiency countries is surprising to me. The other countries in that list speak a small language which explains the reliance on a second language.

<comment><USER10> Austria has a lot of jobs in tourism.

The position of the Netherlands on the list is easy to understand, foreign TV programmes are subtitled not dubbed.

<comment><USER7> Italy and Greece most likely rely on tourism to a greater extent, and speak languages not spoken in other countries, so based on that one might expect them to have a higher position than Austria.

Subtitles might help some but putting effort into actively learning a language is more important; I've seen many subtitled French, Italian and German movies, but I haven't picked up those languages by osmosis... I wish it were that easy.

<comment><USER11> Girlfriend's family is from Flanders, the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium. Her sister speaks fluent English despite very modest formal language training. (On the order of the n<=3 years of Spanish or French that most American students take without much to show for it.) She did, however, watch a lot of subtitled TV.

There are about 20 million Dutch speakers, vs. perhaps 400 million English speakers in the US and UK, which have large markets for TV shows and movies with correspondingly large budgets. For the average Dutch speaker, the subtitled offerings in English are apparently much richer than the home-grown stuff.

This, at least, was how it was explained to me by multiple independent Dutch- speaking Belgians who all had an embarrassingly firm command of idiomatic English.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra I don't understand what fraction of respective countries' population did they test. A country with a lot of subjects may get worse results because more unskilled people try themself / versus a country where English is a rare skill.

Also note small country preference - no country with more than 10M population has Very High index.

Anyway, seeing nordic/germanic countries on top is unsurprising.

</comment><comment><USER12> The Netherlands' history as a trade-based economy forced us to speak both English and German (and possibly French?) pretty fluently.

</comment><comment><USER13> I really want to visit Estonia. It seems to be in the top of nearly every positive national ranking I've seen.

</comment><comment><USER14> One number which really has me is that Singapore's proficiency is only high, from what I've seen, they have (on the whole) have an excellent grasp of english.

<comment><USER15> Yes, totally agree. Most of the Singaporeans I know speak English as their first language. Their standard of written English is arguably higher than that of Britain due to their strict education system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The Philippines isn't even on the list.</comment>