I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#271

Post by noncoml » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 9:02 AM UTC

Jedi72 wrote: post #263

JohnStrange wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

net neutrality != government mandated price controls, so the argument goes nowhere. Companies can charge whatever they want. The other problems you describe could be solved by making false advertising illegal. Don't offer unlimited bandwidth, unlimited transfers or any of this mumbo-jumbo if you can't technically fulfill the promise. It's not your neighbors fault if he uses the Internet for whatever he wants to use i…

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating most of the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[1] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down…

So basically you just debunked your original argument.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#272

Post by Jedi72 » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 9:06 AM UTC

JohnStrange wrote: post #267

Jedi72 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating most of the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[1] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down…

Exactly. It has nothing to do with price regulation.

It clearly has price regulation bundled up in it. Oldest lobbying trick in the book, attach your agenda to something nobody can disagree with. Censorship and control over who sees what is a totally seperate issue to what it costs.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#273

Post by Isn0gud » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 9:07 AM UTC

Jedi72 wrote: post #259

I dont necessarily agree with the following but its a devils advocate argument I rarely see shared, and it has a lot of merit. Like everything, this issue is shades of grey. Bandwidth is a limited amd expensive resource. When government mandated price controls are in effect ("Net neutrality" is a marketing meme) this expense is effectively socialised across the entire country. It is illegal for a telco to go to a hos…

You are right, but if you ever been to a country without net neutrality then you will notice that the "free" volume goes down and the facebook/youtube does not count towards the volume. Do it's basically doing exactly what everybody fears. However, if you would charge facebook/google for using the infrastructure it would be another case... But let's be honest, they never let that happen.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#274

Post by another-dave » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 9:09 AM UTC

zamalek wrote: post #143

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too preemptive' to outlaw it?" But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason). > "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now." But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.

> Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now. It's called shaping and you easily pay 2x the price to avoid it. Everyone above the poverty line pays.

Is traffic shaping website specific? I thought it was just related to packet size, etc. — as in, British Telecom may throttle bandwidth at peak times for data that looks like it may be videos, torrents etc.

In my mind, this is very different to allowing YouTube load faster than Vimeo

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#275

Post by ShabbosGoy » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 9:15 AM UTC

ReverseCold wrote: post #217

notyourday wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is called PNIs to Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other eyeball networks where whoever puts the PNIs still pays to Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other eyeball networks to reach their eyeballs over those PNIs.

PNIs?

Private Network Interconnect

"With peering, there are two methods that connectivity is formed on. The first is where direct connectivity is established between individual networks routers with multiple 10Gigabit Ethernet or 100Gigabit Ethernet links. This sort of connectivity is known as “private peering” or PNI (Private Network Interconnect)."[0]

[0] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/internet-routing-a...

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#276

Post by ikurei » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 9:21 AM UTC

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #49

netsec_burn wrote: post #43

Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane? Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We'v…

> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too preemptive' to outlaw it?" But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason). > "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now." But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.

> But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason).

Murders are punished after they happen. But a plot to murder is in itself a crime.

Also, the fact that punishments come after the fact has nothing to do with this. Murder isn't banned after it happens. It's banned before it happens.

Lastly, you say "the law only acts retroactively". The main purpose of punishing past actions is to disuade people from doing them in the future. If I hate my boss but I decide not to murder him because I don't want my child to grow with me in prison, the law has stopped a crime before it happens.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#277

Post by extortionist » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 9:25 AM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #224

extortionist wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that taking to the street and protesting is also just giving people the illusion that they're doing something useful. The Iraq War protests were some of the largest in history, and they accomplished exactly nothing (and to your example, look up Malachi Ritscher). Occupy Wall Street was a massive movement and accomplished nothing. The protests against Obamacare repeal were massive and widespread, and seem to…

> Office holders are not beholden to people yelling in the streets but to the people who get them elected That's completely incorrect, the easiest thing in politics is to get people to vote for you, especially in a two-party system that effectively prevents challengers to the status quo in an election. All in all, the only power that people effectively have is the power to revolt. Democracy is a peaceful system of go…

I absolutely agree with you--there is no threat of anything resembling revolution in the US today. The issue is not the self-obsession or lack of engagement the ancestor comment describes, but that e.g. Occupy Wall Street was never going to result in the actual occupation of Wall Street.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#278

Post by libraryatnight » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 9:27 AM UTC

VeronicaJJ123 wrote: post #195

netsec_burn wrote: post #43

Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane? Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We'v…

I support Ajit's argument here. Fast lanes exist in other countries and it is saving money for them.

i don't know if it's saving money, I can't find information on that right now, but it does seem like a horrible situation to be in if you want to start a competing service with a company that's already established and included in an ISP plan.

The fact that he is trying to sell this as a repeal of regulatory overreach makes me kind of sick to my stomach. And, it's apparently an overreach because it solves a problem that didn't have a chance to come about? I feel like he's bullshitting me. Regardless, I like my internet access right now, so what problem is he solving for me or the rest of the public by doing this? If it's that these fast lanes will save us money it better be an enormous chunk of money to merit a such significant shift in the way I experience the internet.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#279

Post by jinfiesto » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 9:31 AM UTC

rtpg wrote: post #202

transposed wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that many people actually do hold this belief. That's why someone had to make a bot to create the illusion.

A bunch of the GOP seems to hold this belief. If there wasn't such a strong movement for net neutrality, I bet a bunch of Democrats would like this as well. I understand there are a lot of lobbyists, but there are many people who sincerely believe the "less regulation and more competition will solve the issues" mantra. I place a lot of the blame on outlets like the Wall Street Journal giving credence to arguments tha…

I'm pretty liberal, and I believe that there is some truth to the "less regulation and more competition will solve the issues" mantra. The issue here being that there isn't a real way to inject more competition into the ISP space. Soooo, we are just getting less regulation. Which will inevitably lead to abuses.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#280

Post by noncoml » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 9:32 AM UTC

Jedi72 wrote: post #259

I dont necessarily agree with the following but its a devils advocate argument I rarely see shared, and it has a lot of merit. Like everything, this issue is shades of grey. Bandwidth is a limited amd expensive resource. When government mandated price controls are in effect ("Net neutrality" is a marketing meme) this expense is effectively socialised across the entire country. It is illegal for a telco to go to a hos…

These “whales” have built mega cities and hughe highways to interconnect.

The ISPs on the other hand have built the small roads that connect the highways to your home. You pay the ISP a monthly fee for limited usage of the road so you can get to the highway.

Not having net neutrality is allowing the ISP to control your access to the highway depending on your final destination or the kind of cargo in your car.