I don't even know where to start with that thread. It is filled with instances of complete misinformation.
I really don't understand how users there can support something that will probably result in them paying more for Internet access and limiting what they can access.
It's a series of bad takes strung together into this flimsy idea that a [relatively tiny] service provider has the power to push anything on anyone. That is not to say that a post like this might not be possible, but this series of stub points is so poorly developed, and so full of unsourced nonsense, even defending its presence on HN feels like trying to take the chap shouting at pigeons at the park seriously.
This whole situation baffles me. I understand that the Hola service is not well executed in the slightest and should most likely be avoided if you do not want your net connection shared, but this is going way over the top IMHO.
The FAQ page had always mentioned that resources were shared unless you paid for the premium service. Yes, it could have been a lot clearer, but they have never out right denied it as many people seem to be making out.
People complained that their FAQ and information pages were not up to scratch to explain the details behind their network. So they update it with more information and now people complain that they updated it? Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
The service they provide is obviously targeted at non-technical users so it is completely understandable why they wouldn't be mentioning the technical details. This scares and baffles the users. If they were purposely deceiving the users with flat out lies then that wold be another thing but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
The exploits are serious and extremely stupid in the way they had developed launching the binaries and people should be made aware. However it does seem like Hola is getting a lot more flack than most others would.
I think you misunderstand the goals of this community-run mesh. The FAQ has some info on why they don't charge, who runs routers, and what they're trying to accomplish.
It's almost like raising the price of your service 5 times in like 2 years, forbidding sharing, is pissing people off and pushing them back toward "alternative" solutions.
"Face it: You are simply trying to defend your CDN business as it is being bypassed by direct connections between content providers and last mile ISPs."
Its clearly a telecom employee that wrote that or someone who is ignorant. If they weren't, they'd realize https://www.netflix.com/openconnect was Netflix offering to do that for free.
Netflix is paying to get the data from their datacenters to the LEC regardless.
That’s the equivalent of saying, “new thread, who dis?” I know what you said, the problem is that you’re not interested in hearing what others say. Especially regarding your bias of deeming centralized services “not worth the convenience” despite popular consensus voting otherwise via installations and usage. By all means hold to your view - you just have to do a better job of convincing others of it.
It's very easy to throw shade at other providers, then not provide those assurances in your own service.
It seems like a weak attempt to throw shade at other providers without substantiated claims. Take Quad9 for instance, they have plenty of information in their transparency report regarding their service, over and above what Wikimedia has provided.
Sorry but in your original post you specified opt-in. In any event, different providers are either opt-in or opt-out, O2 is not the only ISP in UK and the link you share is just the boilerplate text on O2's parental controls policy, so what?
I feel I explained my rationale and there can be no more constructive conversation in the particular thread. As for the article being FUD, sorry darling I guess we'll have to disagree on this one.
Could someone explain why goombastic is being down voted? I am unable to figure out what is objectionable about his comment, unless the provider he mentioned is known to be bad.
I'm sure it is. However that doesn't mean they don't owe their (apparently paying) users information. From what these folks are writing, nobody seems to have told them the service was going to be unsupported.
I would guess that some people are disagreeing that this particular service is seen by most purchasers of it as a commodity.
Others are probably disagreeing because they're conflating "market" with "free market", and this sort of service has a bunch of constraints from all sides.
You don't seem to understand: This is not a technical issue; is a conceptual one, people are not going to read the details of the deal, rather to grab the idea and slowly believe that paying for better connection with a site/ISP is normal.
What exactly is the point of your post? So far everyone has agreed that both the company hosting the server and the consumer are paying for their connections.
They sound divisive on the matter because for over a decade now they've fruitlessly tried to explain the abject idiocy of backing a takeover attempt by a party whose business model is directly focused around constraining on chain capacity to a uselessly low rate, the lower the better, and the uselessly low rate this attack has managed to constrain it to is barely higher than the throughput of a fax machine. Let that sink in; it's 2021 and gigabit internet in developing countries is not that big a deal for context. Fax machines haven't been "fast" since I was a kid and my hair is white now.
The situation is utterly absurd, and watching it unfold first hand over the last decade has been completely maddening. It is zero wonder at all that everybody subjected to that spectacle is not in good humour about having watched it transpire and the only way people can be surprised by that state is a lack of familiarity with the facts of the matter.
This thread has to be one of the most overtly hostile threads I've read on HN in a while. What is your concern here? Why do you seem to feel they shouldn't even be trying?
It's not "free connectivity" and shouldn't be discussed as such. It's "free access to a bundle of sites", which isn't the same thing - basically it's a monopoly doing a loss-leader program.
It transfers the cost to vendors because their customer has an unusable product. Guess who they call first.
It's tough to defend the rights of citizens to have their internet-of-garbage devices stay online when those devices are turned into weapons of mass outage.
I really don't understand how users there can support something that will probably result in them paying more for Internet access and limiting what they can access.
reply