Net neutrality is in jeopardy again • Hacker News Board

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#301

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc » Mon, May 08, 2017, 6:24 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #279

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast tops out at 60Mbps where I live, which is basically Beverly Hills, a pretty wealthy area. Oh, the upload speed is a comcastic 5Mbps. It's $80, it's regularly throttled, and it has data caps (although I've gone over and not been charged.) If I had a 4K tv, I'd most likely be over. This is a perfect example of how they stifle innovation by being another impediment/middle man in the move to 4K TV. Previously, I…

They are rolling out Docsis 3.1 in pretty wide areas. Sooner rather than later you'll be able to get way over 60mbit. And 60 mbit is nothing to sneeze at. >I don't want or need my ISP to be innovative. I want a dumb, no BS pipe that offers a decent price without bundling, since I don't need tv or a phone No, you don't want it to be a dumb pipe. You want an ever increasingly fast service. If they installed a dumb pipe…

> And 60 mbit is nothing to sneeze at.

It's substandard, especially when living in the 2nd largest city in the US. It's nealy unacceptable when the upload speeds are a paltry 5Mbps.

I want, a network that simply provides simple bandwidth and network speed while being completely neutral with regard to the services and applications the customer accesses that offers if not symmetrical, usable upload speeds.

A dumb pipe is not a stagnant pipe, upgrades to network speed doesn't make it smart.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#302

Post by dsp1234 » Mon, May 08, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #187

apexalpha wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not American, so please correct me if I'm wrong but I have yet to see any proof of this whole 'sell your internet history' complaint that seems to be blatently copied by everyone without any research. The way I understand it is that ISPs can sell anonymized data from groups of users. Like: people who visit news.ycombinator.com generally also visit stackoverflow. I also don't know how an ISP would get your actual…

The common response to this is that ISPs have access to everything you do (which is true), and that they could sell that (which is false). The regulations being overturned here are ones that have only recently taken effect, and non-anonymized, non-aggregate selling of ISP data is still outlawed by the Cable Communications Act of 1984, which protects subscriber privacy is 47USC § 551[1]. Put simply, neither the most r…

That section of law says they can sell your data with prior written or electronic permission.

47 U.S. Code § 551 (c)(1)

Except as provided in paragraph (2), a cable operator shall not disclose personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber without the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber concerned

So this section of the law, though another might, does not support your statement that "that they could sell that (which is false)".

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#303

Post by rocqua » Mon, May 08, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

narrowrail wrote: post #280

rocqua wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could just MITM all connections and say 'for compatibility reasons, please install this root certificate'. With a fee, this requirement could then be waived. Dystopian but technically possible.

This type of hypothetical drives me batty, and I was tempted to be snarky. I'm not sure how to respond to the idea that there will ever be a time your ISP requires root cert installation for service, but I will be finding a way to launch a WISP of my own at that point.

My original was already snark. Though I don't think its impossible that a small amount of non-technical people might actually be convinced to do this.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#304

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc » Mon, May 08, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #281

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast is nearly the worst internet provider and the worst company that has ever received my money. The only worse experience I've ever had is with AT&T. Comcast is also a huge content provider of crap I'd never watch: NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo, E!, CNBC World. I watch a couple of shows from USA (Mr Robot) and SyFy(The Expanse) that I prefer to purchase by the season. I don't want to live in a world where those statio…

> deal with the 25ms latency Even on that metric there's not a lot of downside vs. typical monopoly/duopoly ISPs. I have 20ms of last-mile latency on ATT.

And I'd feel better about where my money is going. It'd be in the hands of someone who actually innovates and invests in the uture

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#305

Post by Sami_Lehtinen » Mon, May 08, 2017, 6:31 PM UTC

My Internet connection contract already says that they reserve right to: Queue, Prioritize and Throttle traffic. This is used to optimize traffic. - Doesn't sound too neutral to me? It's also clearly stated that some traffic on the network get absolute priority over secondary classes.

Interestingly at one point 100 Mbit/s connection wasn't nearly fast enough to play almost any content from YouTube. - Maybe there's some kind of relation, maybe not.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#306

Post by seton67 » Mon, May 08, 2017, 6:33 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #39

http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].

Please preserve net neutrality under the auspices of Title 2.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#307

Post by guelo » Mon, May 08, 2017, 6:33 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #299

guelo wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law section you linked to is concerned with PII, personally identifiable information. But what ISPs are most likely to sell is anonymized browsing data, i.e. when an advertiser goes to display an ad the ISP will tell them what other URLs you've been to but they won't tell the advertiser your name, address, social, etc.

Agreed, with the caveat that there are also restrictions requiring aggregation as well.

The only thing your link says about aggregate data is that PII is not aggregate data, meaning that aggregate data is exempt from these restrictions.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#308

Post by seton67 » Mon, May 08, 2017, 6:34 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #39

http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].

Please preserve net neutrality under auspices of Title 2.

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#309

Post by Zing4 » Mon, May 08, 2017, 6:38 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #39

http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].

Preserve net neutrality. It's essential to keep the internet fair to all.

Zing4

Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

#310

Post by MadWombat » Mon, May 08, 2017, 6:38 PM UTC

bkeroack wrote: post #72

I've written it before and I'll write it again (despite the massive downvotes from those who want to silence dissent): Title II regulation of the Internet is not the net neutrality panacea that many people think it is. That is the same kind of heavy-handed regulation that gave us the sorry copper POTS network we are stuck with today. The free market is the solution, and must be defended against those who want Europea…

> The free market is the solution

Famous last words. Free market caters to existing major players. Even the notoriously free financial markets are heavily regulated to prevent bigger players squeezing out smaller players. The idea that free market unregulated capitalism is the answer to everything has been shown as wrong many times over.