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

91–100 of 322 posts

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

#91

Post by snuxoll »

wtallis wrote: post #53
grandalf wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

> For anything other than a dedicated "business class" circuit with hard performance guarantees, speculation and shaping is involved in delivering the end product. The alternative to a connection with a SLA guarantee is a best effort connection, not discriminatory traffic shaping. Underprovisioning part of your network doesn't require you to show favoritism to certain traffic—the normal way to cope with larger than e…

> the normal way to cope with larger than expected usage is to just start dropping packets where there's congestion.

And lo and behold, that's what ISP's have always offered to consumers. There's a reason connections are always advertised as "up to 50Mbps" instead of "50 Mbps", hell, even my "business" connection with the local cable company has absolutely no guarantee beyond "we'll have someone out to repair your service within 4 hours".

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

#92

Post by conradev »

subverter wrote: post #39

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 behem…

Don't paid peering deals (i.e. Netflix paying Comcast) only reinforce the competitive advantage that these horrible behemoths have?

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

#93

Post by dv_dt »

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…

As long as a competitive market exists, I'm happy to let the market work out who has the better strategy: hardware oriented vs rulesets, etc. But where there is no competition (e.g. the last residential mile), I want regulations protecting me as a consumer with various accessibility, privacy, and fairness guarantees.

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

#94

Post by subverter »

and0 wrote: post #56
guelo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we want secret network caps and slowdowns to be how they compete against the big boys?

This ^ I say this every time and no one has ever been able to answer: how is a simple "don't prioritize traffic" some kind of competition-killing regulation, and how would removing it actually create competition anyway?

I think it's because it removes an entire vector that these companies can compete on. They can compete on price, support, coverage, etc. – but service-wise, they all have to be the same. They can't differentiate themselves, which is important to entice entrepreneurs to get into the business.

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

#95

Post by rocky1138 »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #77
rocky1138 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about we make it a rule that if anyone wants access to the network they are not allowed to charge for it. It must be done only to help grow the network for its own sake.

Someone will sue and then laws will be made. Whoever has the most money/best lawyers will win.

Because the network is grass-roots, we can ignore the laws.

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

#97

Post by fragmede »

subverter wrote: post #39

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 behem…

By the way, every time I've noticed the FCC has come up on HN in the recent past, an aged account has always posted a pro Trump's FCC comment with an argument tweaked for HN's biases, as seen above, and if that is the only comment you read in the thread, you'd falsely conclude that they're right and believe that Ajit Pai's version of the FCC will be better for business than Tom Wheeler's.

Ajit Pai's FCC will be better for business, incumbent businesses like Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon, who'd rather not actually pay for network engineers, sysadmins, or software developers, and just sit there raking in cash, without owing anything to the communities they're in.

Reduced-cost access for people that can't afford it was the first thing on the chopping block, as well as for schools and libraries. Next up is net neutrality; this is undoubtedly the first move of many on this front.

In other news today, laws subjecting ISPs like Comcast and AT&T to get permission from you, before sharing browsing history, location, and other sensitive data. Don't be fooled, Ajit Pai's FCC is a friend to big business.

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

#98

Post by scarface74 »

wtallis wrote: post #58
subverter wrote: post #39

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 behem…

> Isn't more competition among providers what we want? Only at some levels. Physical last-mile connectivity is a natural monopoly; we shouldn't want more than one trench along each driveway. If an ISP has a local monopoly that only covers one city rather than a whole state, that doesn't change the dynamics of what's fair to their users.

I would think that any many decently populated areas, it's at least a "duopoly". You would have the cable company and the phone company competing. I have a choice between Comcast and AT&T.

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

#99

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

subverter wrote: post #68
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those 6.8 hours are spent making information public which is important to consumer choice. This move doesn't help competition, it harms it.

I think you're making an assumption that shouldn't be assumed: that these smaller providers won't voluntarily be transparent and open. If I were competing against the likes of AT&T and Comcast, I'd use that as a competitive advantage! They're trying to differentiate themselves from the incumbents, not be exactly the same. But even if they weren't open and transparent, wouldn't technologists like ourselves push to fin…

AT&T and Comcast are required to report this information because they are large. So providing the data would not differentiate small from large companies. Furthermore, if small providers will voluntarily provide information, what is the point of getting rid of the regulation? Beyond that, maybe you can find me some examples of companies which are under the previous 100,000 threshhold which do provide this information? That would be a great boon to your point.

>But even if they weren't open and transparent, wouldn't technologists like ourselves push to find the limits and publish them online? We can hold them accountable just as well without piling on more regulation.

Or we could just make the company itself spend time equivalent to less than 1 work day of 1 individual and get all the data... "Piling on regulation" makes it sound as if this is incredibly burdensome which it's not. It's basically zero work from the perspective of the company.

I'd like to say that I'm basically always in support of forcing companies to publish more consumer-relevant information. Remember that the perfectly-competitive model requires that consumers have perfect information. More information means more informed choices means more quality competition.

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

#100

Post by oculusthrift »

ardacinar wrote: post #70
woah wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Has Amazon ever delivered less than what was advertised when you paid for it? I mean, I never experienced anything like that but geniunely curious if it is a thing (Might be possible in AWS lambda etc.)

no. there is a service level agreement so if they don't meet the promises there is repurcussione. it's also not an apt analogy considering one can easily switch to Azure or Google Cloud or Self hosting whereas most people are stuck with one ISP that has a monopoly in that area
Post reply on HN