Its interesting to consider how many of these comments are fake
FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
41–50 of 322 posts
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Calling names is fine. It's the violent riots that are getting annoying.
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#43Its interesting to consider how many of these comments are fake
Here on hacker news?
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#44This 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 behem…
Do we want secret network caps and slowdowns to be how they compete against the big boys?
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#45Does 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…
Net neutrality refers to packet shaping by source and destination.
QoS refers to packet shaping by type of content.
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#46Does 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…
> 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).
This is a very naive comment. For anything other than a dedicated "business class" circuit with hard performance guarantees, speculation and shaping is involved in delivering the end product.
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#47Google Fiber got to a couple of nearby communities before they put the brakes on.
I'm left hoping that's close enough to branch out wireless service in short order.
Otherwise, I'm left screwed, between an AT&T that refuses to upgrade its local network (and it's a dense, accessible, suburban neighborhood -- hardly the boonies), and a Comcast that has doubled its rates for basically the same service. Both with caps that will quickly look increasingly ridiculous in the face of the wider world of data transfer.
We'll be back to them insisting on big bucks for assymmetric streaming of big-brand content, with increasing pressure to make that their content (a la data-cap exemptions, etc.)
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#48This 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 behem…
Those 6.8 hours are spent making information public which is important to consumer choice. This move doesn't help competition, it harms it.
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#49Does 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…
> Does anyone actually believe we will "run out of bandwidth" to the point where traffic shaping will become essential?
Traffic shaping has always been essential. Bandwidth has never been infinite, and there's always been latency vs. bandwidth tradeoffs that need to be managed.
Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks
#50I hate these types of articles that provide extensive quotes and even a screenshot of part of the pdf, but refuse to link to the actual documents. It's probably an advertising thing where they don't want people to leave the site.
The actual statements are available here https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-addresses-unnecessary-accou...