Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 322 posts

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#31

Post by aanm1988 »

oldrny wrote: post #25
jerkstate wrote: post #16

Does anyone with a strong understanding of internetworking, peering and transit contract negotiation actually believe that "net neutrality" is possible? traffic shaping of saturated links seems like a necessary outcome to not undermine the smaller users (i.e. low bandwidth communications) that are impacted by heavy users (i.e. video streaming) if two peering parties can't come to terms on cost sharing for link upgrad…

Isn't the idea of network neutrality to prevent discriminating between traffic sources, not quantities? I.e. providers can still charge an arm and a leg for heavy users, and allow 'light' users to pay significantly less (maybe based on some non-linear scale?)

Yeah, but anti-neutrality people tend to try to create the other narrative. Popular metaphor I've seen is "net neutrality is like telling the post office they have to charge the same for a large heavy package and an envelope". Which is not true, you have to charge the same for each heavy package regardless of what is in it, but you can still charge more than an envelope.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#32

Post by aanm1988 »

spaced_out wrote: post #11
MrZongle2 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why getting laws passed, instead of relying on executive orders and the whims of bureaucrats in power at the time, is so crucial.

That's not going to happen as long as there are at least 40 Republicans in the senate. They used a filibuster to block a moderate Supreme Court nominee, you think they'll even consider allowing an internet reform bill to come to a vote?

> They used a filibuster to block a moderate Supreme Court nominee

If you are talking about Garland then no they didn't. They just didn't vote for months. They just refused to do their jobs.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#33

Post by woah »

I asked this in another thread a few days ago, but why are edge servers and CDNs not a violation of "net neutrality"? If you've got an edge server on an ISP, and are paying extra for a leased line from your main data center to that server, you are effectively paying the ISP an additional fee for priority over other traffic on their hardware.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#34

Post by jellicle »

jerkstate wrote: post #16

Does anyone with a strong understanding of internetworking, peering and transit contract negotiation actually believe that "net neutrality" is possible? traffic shaping of saturated links seems like a necessary outcome to not undermine the smaller users (i.e. low bandwidth communications) that are impacted by heavy users (i.e. video streaming) if two peering parties can't come to terms on cost sharing for link upgrad…

The net neutrality battle is over shaping traffic to maximize profits, not shaping traffic to maximize throughput/usability.

In a dollar-shaped traffic paradigm, you might slow down traffic even when your link is 3/4 empty, in order to maximize profits.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#35

Post by [deleted] »

wmf wrote: post #24
jerkstate wrote: post #16

Does anyone with a strong understanding of internetworking, peering and transit contract negotiation actually believe that "net neutrality" is possible? traffic shaping of saturated links seems like a necessary outcome to not undermine the smaller users (i.e. low bandwidth communications) that are impacted by heavy users (i.e. video streaming) if two peering parties can't come to terms on cost sharing for link upgrad…

Peering and transit links simply shouldn't ever be saturated. If the parties can't come to terms then the government should set the rate at zero (Judgment of Solomon style).

[deleted]

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#36

Post by aanm1988 »

abootstrapper wrote: post #28
MrZongle2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How ever did things get made into law in the past? Compromise. Something that neither of the two major parties seem interested in anymore. It is that, not the allocation of seats to a party in Congress, which is why things haven't gotten done.

The Republicans are not interested in compromise. They've pulled the Dems so far right, they're practically center now.

and then paint them all as crazy left wing idiots who want to censor everything.

Then they whine that democrats are jerks when dems call them anything.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#37

Post by jerkstate »

throwaway729 wrote: post #26
jerkstate wrote: post #16

Does anyone with a strong understanding of internetworking, peering and transit contract negotiation actually believe that "net neutrality" is possible? traffic shaping of saturated links seems like a necessary outcome to not undermine the smaller users (i.e. low bandwidth communications) that are impacted by heavy users (i.e. video streaming) if two peering parties can't come to terms on cost sharing for link upgrad…

So there's "internetworking, peering and transit contract negotiation", etc. And then there's "Comcast allowed to bundle internal video streaming platform with bandwidth in order to compete against Netflix" It's completely trivial for the FCC to allow the former and clamp down hard on the latter.

Eisenach wrote some papers on using existing antitrust laws rather than NN laws to punish anticompetitive behavior, which I think is reasonable. Apply the laws we already have, don't make new laws that prevent reasonable behavior.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#38

Post by woah »

riskable wrote: post #21
jerkstate wrote: post #16

Does anyone with a strong understanding of internetworking, peering and transit contract negotiation actually believe that "net neutrality" is possible? traffic shaping of saturated links seems like a necessary outcome to not undermine the smaller users (i.e. low bandwidth communications) that are impacted by heavy users (i.e. video streaming) if two peering parties can't come to terms on cost sharing for link upgrad…

Does anyone actually believe we will "run out of bandwidth" to the point where traffic shaping will become essential? Traffic shaping of saturated links sounds like a waste of time and resources when it's so much easier to just upgrade the hardware. It's cheaper too! It also happens to be the fucking purpose of the ISP (to provide adequate bandwidth for their customers). Think of how much it costs to pay people to ma…

Do you also argue strenuously against optimizing software CPU and memory consumption?

> It's the FUCKING PURPOSE of AWS to run my code! Why don't they just buy more hardware to make it run faster?

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#39

Post by subverter »

This raises the limit on the number of subscribers a provider can have before regulation kicks in. In other words, a larger number of smaller providers have one less regulation to worry about.

Isn't more competition among providers what we want? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can – even if it's saving 6.8 hours per year in regulatory compliance – to help these smaller guys be able to take on these horrible behemoths like AT&T and Comcast?

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#40

Post by dopamean »

dragonwriter wrote: post #8
dopamean wrote: post #4

Why is the FCC against net neutrality?

The Republican Party is against net neutrality and now controls a majority of seats on the FCC, hence, the FCC now opposes net neutrality. Since the issue really became a big deal, the FCC has been split on party lines over it.

Then why are Republicans against net neutrality? I suspect the answer is "money" and that the wrong people are greasing the right palms to get this done. If that really is the truth then why aren't companies in tech doing more of the same to protect their interests? How the hell is it that companies like Comcast have the upper hand here?
Post reply on HN