Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 423 posts

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

#341

Post by vidarh »

QAkICoU7IDNkpFu wrote: post #287
jinfiesto wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Break up the biggest ISP's by force.

Or properly regulate local loop unbundling and force cost+ resale of access to subscriber lines.

E.g. the way it works in the UK (it works similarly, but not entirely identically, in all EU countries), which is absolutely not ideal but gives reasonable competition is that BT OpenReach (by virtue of BT's past monopoly) is regulated and is required to offer any ISP access to their network on equal basis. This means the ISPs have a few choices:

* They can put equipment in the exchanges, and "just" get access to a raw connection to the subscriber. OpenReach maintains the lines.

* They can contract OpenReach for "backhaul" of IP traffic to central locations.

* They can build their own last mile network.

I can pick from dozens of providers because of that, but most of them mean I'll pay a basic line rental either directly to BT or via the provider, and that is the same for any of them. Others are free to build their own network without the same restrictions, but this for natural reasons happens very slowly (predominantly fibre providers in dense urban areas, and a cable provider).

In that model net neutrality is less of a concern. It's not entirely free of issues, as major ISPs certainly still could offer preferential access to certain content, but at least we have real competition beyond the last mile.

The biggest problem with this is that the way it is structured does not give BT a strong incentive to invest in improving the last mile network. I'd have preferred if there was an additional clause restricting them to only take out dividends from OpenReach proportional to the investments made in improving the network. But overall it's working reasonably well.

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

#342

Post by cabaalis »

I am in favor of net neutrality. But the way you win this argument is not to support it en masse, or to blindly ask your representatives to support it because you think it's good. You have to craft an argument that overcomes the "This is not the government's right or responsibility to control" response. This is what the conservative talking heads are spouting, this is what average Americans believe in and stand behind, and changing this argument is how you win.

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

#344

Post by AnthonyMouse »

isostatic wrote: post #285
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They don't want NN when it comes to gaming latency vs. email latency. That isn't a thing. ISPs don't actually do that. Latency on any reasonably provisioned network is determined by distance and the speed of light. There is no magic thing routers can do for special packets to make it go down, it's just the laws of physics. They could only do something when the network isn't reasonably provisioned and the ISP's upli…

I have a 500mbit/sec wan link. Unless I'm careful I can lose packets with a stream running at 100mbit (send at 1gbit for 100ms, 0mbit for 900ms - see this with iperf3 for example) I need to buffer that 50mbit of traffic, which could be 100,000 packets. It also introduces delay. I can still use qos to ensure packets I want with less jitter get through in front of the 100k queue. The latency over the second will vary f…

> I have a 500mbit/sec wan link. Unless I'm careful I can lose packets with a stream running at 100mbit (send at 1gbit for 100ms, 0mbit for 900ms - see this with iperf3 for example)

Sending at gigabit for 100ms implies a 12.5MB buffer. A lot of routers sensibly won't (or just can't) buffer that much data, so sending in such large bursts is a good way to get your packets dropped. Which is why sensible programs (and the TCP stacks in major operating systems) don't do that. Instead they'll either use a smaller time slice or use the event-based TCP "ACK clock" where packets are sent in response to receiving acknowledgements of previous packets, which spreads the transmissions more uniformly.

Moreover, notice that the thing you're describing still shouldn't happen within an ISP's network, because it's caused by an individual stream sending faster than the path bandwidth. That can happen when you go from 1Gbps LAN to It shouldn't happen when you go from a 500Mbps customer link to an unsaturated 40Gbps peering link. The 500Mbps link can't saturate the 40Gbps link, and if some combination of them do, it's not because of the sending pattern, it's because the uplink is too over-subscribed.

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

#345

Post by omon »

akerro wrote: post #268
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…

He's also lying, there are fast lanes in US already: https://www.networkworld.com/article/2226901/opensource-subn... We learnt about this from Snowdens documents in 2014.

I hate to be an apologist, but you're the only one who is mistaken here, he specifically is talking about the blocking of web traffic not fast lanes: "The answer to the first is we're not sure".

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

#346

Post by mosselman »

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.

" proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem."

Don't care whether there will be a problem with how the internet works as they will become filthy rich. That is why they want to kill net neutrality; dollar dollar bills. They couldn't care less about the user experience.

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

#347

Post by takeda »

Nokinside wrote: post #142
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…

The net neutrality laws prohibit anti-competitive blocking and "throttling" of Internet services or discriminating by protocol, ip-adress, application, etc. What should be outside net neutrality laws are protocols that leave the customer and applications in control. There is nothing wrong with using Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP), DSCP and IPv6 flow labels to get QoS that differ from the dumb pipe. Many future…

I believe it is best to leave traffic shaping to the endpoints, what is important to me doesn't mean it is important for the ISP.

ISP should just provide enough capacity to pass all their traffic without being dropped. Don't oversell what you can't provide.

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

#348

Post by takeda »

dingaling wrote: post #225
xpac wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portugal. https://mobile.twitter.com/rokhanna/status/92370187109244108...

As was pointed-out repeatedly yesterday, those are add-ons for mobile data. You pay your base fee ( to access anything ) and you can then add particular bundles to get flat-rated access to certain websites. Or you can just continue to pay by the MB.

"Our company doesn't discriminate against colored people, we are just very picky about or employees and white people happens to satisfy our requirements"

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

#349

Post by AnthonyMouse »

notyourday wrote: post #327
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> See Verizon and Comcast. Today. With Net Neutrality on the books. Want to bypass this congestion? Buy some PNIs. That absolutely is a problem with the existing rules. Some people pointed that out when they were proposed. But the existing rules solve some problems, just not all of them. And you don't go forward by going backward.

Since Sprint in 1995 got away with asking others who peered with it over public exchanges for money in order not to turn down their existing peering, NN was dead. NN does not live in reality. In reality there are so many line cards that one can put into a router/switch/linux box, there's so much space in a cabinet and there are only so many people who know how to operate in a physical world. Everyone with a little mo…

> Since Sprint in 1995 got away with asking others who peered with it over public exchanges for money in order not to turn down their existing peering, NN was dead.

Which is why we still need a rule prohibiting that. But the existing rules are still helpful. They address the consumer side of things. At least you don't have Comcast charging its customers money for a Netflix package and charging Netflix for peering.

> The solution is regional ISPs and regional networks - breaking up franchise agreements with Comcast and Verizon that your little town has, getting ROW via cities/towns, leveraging small electric companies ROWS, etc.

That could be a solution, but it would certainly take at least a decade if not more, and until that has actually happened we need something else.

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

#350

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> The answer to the first is we're not sure. We've never seen them before

You’ve (the FCC) seen abd addressed seen and acted against selective slow lanes, (intentionally inhibited traffic) which are the same thing as fast lanes, just with which side is the “default” switched. And you've seen paid prioritization fast lanes in foreign markets without the FCC’s 13-year history of pro-neutrality policies. So this is either misleadingly selective or just plain outright lying, but then that's true of basically everything Pai has said about neutrality since joining the FCC.

Post reply on HN