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

131–140 of 322 posts

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

#131

Post by JoshTriplett »

and0 wrote: post #124
JoshTriplett wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you phrase it as just "don't prioritize traffic", you've just broken most CDNs, as well as QoS that optimizes for latency/bandwidth to improve VoIP and similar. There's absolutely nothing wrong with, for instance, a content provider handing an ISP a box that sits on their network, mirrors/caches content, and serves it up to that ISP's customers. That helps the content provider, the ISP, and the ISP's customers. An…

Thanks for the robust answer. I think the CDN fix could be built right into net-neutrality laws: If you're going to support that functionality then also do it equally to any CDN that is also willing to foot the bill and/or meets certain criteria. For example, don't only let Netflix's smaller competitors let that box sit on your network. (No, this regulation wouldn't be burdensome either.) QoS is something I'm unfamil…

"Apply the same requirements to all services" certainly seems plausible, though that relates more to antitrust than net neutrality.

Defining "willing to foot the bill and/or meets certain criteria" would still require very careful drafting to avoid breaking things, though.

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

#132

Post by st3v3r »

subverter wrote: post #94
and0 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I fail to see how that's a problem.

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

#133

Post by st3v3r »

subverter wrote: post #83
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?

They wouldn't be able to compete without offering a service that differentiates them from the competition in a way that appeals to consumers. "Secret network caps and slowdowns" doesn't sound very appealing, so why assume they'd all take that route? I think it's more realistic to assume they'd differentiate through better service, faster speeds, higher/no caps, etc. That's what we want and are willing to pay for.

How does this rule, or any other NN provision prevent them from doing that? The answer is that it doesn't.

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

#134

Post by JediWing »

seibelj wrote: post #54

I know several people who are highly involved with the FCC, telecom industry, and telecom law that think that "network neutrality" is just 2 words. Until 1970, and only because of lawsuits, it was illegal to connect anything to your phone line. You could get any phone you wanted from Ma Bell as long as it was black.[0] If you wanted a different color you had to pay extra. It took force to make Ma Bell and the FCC all…

Huh?

The only reason you could connect "any lawful device" after 1968 was because of the FCC "Carterphone" rulemaking.

In its absence, Ma Bell would have kept forced leasing of standard phones as long as possible. Perhaps I'm misunderstand you (or missing sarcasm?).

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

#135

Post by rhino369 »

walshemj wrote: post #105
wtallis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Local loop unbundling is what you need like the UK has

The problem is that most americans get their internet over coxial cable owned by the local cable co. Most cable company networks don't have individual loops to unbundle.

You share a loop with the whole neighborhood.

I've heard people claim it is possible, but I'm not really sure how.

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

#136

Post by and0 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #123
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's absolutely nothing wrong with, for instance, a content provider handing an ISP a box that sits on their network, mirrors/caches content, and serves it up to that ISP's customers. That helps the content provider, the ISP, and the ISP's customers. And I don't think the majority of "net neutrality" advocates want to break that. ...until the ISP decides to charge a large amount of money for the ability to do th…

> ...until the ISP decides to charge a large amount of money for the ability to do that, and then under-provision their peering links so that there is no other way to have adequate performance. The latter is the primary problem here. > Require last mile ISPs to do free peering with anyone who has traffic for their last mile customers. What does "last mile ISP" mean here? DSL is no longer competitive, and most impleme…

I appreciate that you bring these questions up but your overall point seems to be "this is complicated and you can't provide logically / morally perfect arguments", which seems a little pointless.

All legal matters are complicated, but we're a modern society full of a lot of bright people and "free market lol ISPs get to be highway robbers now" doesn't seem like the best we can do.

I also disagree with the notion that inconveniencing some billionaires is less moral than hurting millions of consumers and setting a horrible precedent, so: regulate the shit out of them. If poor people can bootstrap huge medical bills then ISPs can handle some simple regulation.

e: you didn't make that point about prioritizing rich over poor etc, that was directed more broadly at net neutrality opponents

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

#137

Post by cstejerean »

massysett wrote: post #112
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a case to be had for how vertical-integration makes businesses more efficient and means there can be some cost-savings for consumers (e.g. if Comcast zero-rated their own streaming video service and included it in their customers' cable Internet fees then consumers would save $10/mo they wouldn't be paying to Netflix - in much the same way Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer meant no-one pays for Netsc…

As a NN opponent, you have somewhat captured my viewpoint. Mostly I think NN is fighting the last war. NN proponents continually assert there is no competition for wired Internet and, therefore, it must be regulated. I think looking at wired Internet defines much too narrow a market. As wireless proliferates, it will become increasingly important, and competition in wireless is alive and well. The recent reignition o…

Wireless competition is only alive because the government blocked the merger of T-Mobile and AT&T and then of Spring and T-Mobile. This then forced T-Mobile (and now Sprint) to get creative in trying to compete with Verizon and AT&T.

Also, wireless is not really competition for home internet. Try cancelling your home internet service and relying solely on one of the wireless carriers and see how far you'll get. The latency, bandwidth and reliability of wireless are much worse than wired networks. The wireless carriers simply don't have the spectrum to provision the same capacity that people routinely use on their home internet connections. With the move to unlimited data plans the only solution will have is severely throttling the traffic of people that actually try to use a substantial amount of data.

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

#138

Post by pseudalopex »

massysett wrote: post #112
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a case to be had for how vertical-integration makes businesses more efficient and means there can be some cost-savings for consumers (e.g. if Comcast zero-rated their own streaming video service and included it in their customers' cable Internet fees then consumers would save $10/mo they wouldn't be paying to Netflix - in much the same way Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer meant no-one pays for Netsc…

As a NN opponent, you have somewhat captured my viewpoint. Mostly I think NN is fighting the last war. NN proponents continually assert there is no competition for wired Internet and, therefore, it must be regulated. I think looking at wired Internet defines much too narrow a market. As wireless proliferates, it will become increasingly important, and competition in wireless is alive and well. The recent reignition o…

4G networks average around 12 Mbps, a little faster than Comcast's lowest tier. The new "unlimited" data plans have throttling thresholds between 20 and 30 GB with even lower limits for tethering.

Governments did intervene against Microsoft, so I'm not sure the market gets all the credit for the fix.

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

#139

Post by grandalf »

wtallis wrote: post #121
grandalf wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is what it does to YouTube's competitors: they now suffer because YT can afford to ask T-Mobile to make their traffic more important. But simply by virtue of YouTube's market share, an economic incentive exists to install backbone links that help route YouTube's traffic (as opposed to others'). In other words, if two backbone links might be installed, the one whose outcome makes access to Youtube more r…

> In other words, network topology adapts to traffic demand (albeit more slowly than traffic shaping). A fair traffic management policy would allow for YouTube users to consume bandwidth in exact proportion to their share of overall demand for bandwidth. Traffic shaping on top of that could only have the effect of meaning that a YouTube user will get more bandwidth than their Netflix-using neighbor even if they're bo…

> A fair traffic management policy would allow for YouTube users to consume bandwidth in exact proportion to their share of overall demand for bandwidth.

I think this statement is in effect a straw man, since the relevant consideration for QoS is the timing of consuming that bandwidth.

If you mean instantaneous bandwidth, then you are saying that both Youtube customers and Netflix customers should be able to use a circuit that they primarily use for watching video to also be equally optimized for real time protocols.

If you argue that a VOIP customer should be able to place a call with the absolute minimal latency the network can provide, even if it means that video content will (on average) buffer for an extra second, that is not an example of a fair system, just one that is extremely friendly to VOIP.

Why shouldn't someone be able to start a Skype competitor that offers latency characteristics for audio calls that rivals POTS latency? As it stands, Skype unusable for low latency coms both because of protocol/codec design and typical network characteristics.

So, I think that unless you enthrone modern "typical" characteristics as ideal then it's hard to argue that imposing restrictions of what shaping approaches can and should be utilized is somehow qualitatively neutral, rather than simply benefitting incumbent interests.

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

#140

Post by Balgair »

Retric wrote: post #122
necessity wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People agree with someone you disagree, so it must be a conspiracy. Also I think you underestimate the intelligence of the average commentor.

Look at the comment and submission history of the account he responded to. It's a well maintained shill used for propaganda and likely one of many. This is then kind of thing you see in authoritarian states and rather chilling.

I mean, the GP's name is: subverter. Like, it's in their flippin name.
Post reply on HN