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

351–360 of 423 posts

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

#351

Post by dragonwriter »

notyourday wrote: post #204
Nokinside wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The net neutrality laws prohibit anti-competitive blocking and "throttling" of Internet services or discriminating by protocol, ip-adress, application, etc. Except that NN does not prohibit it for traffic engineering purposes. And I'm here, just doing traffic engineering: if (you-pay-me-for-PNIs) { set-local-preference really-high } else { set-local-preference default } Oh look, your traffic is going to the non-con…

> Except that NN does not prohibit it for traffic engineering purposes.

Not outright but it does restrict it specifically to prevent it from being a backdoor for this kind of edge provider discrimination.

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

#352

Post by tambienben »

ekianjo wrote: post #211
tambienben wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem. And they literally wouldn't be if internet service was delivered in a free market. The problem is that the market isn't free. ISPs have spent years rigging the market in their favor, politically. The landscape is already hostile to the consumer--they intend to make it more so.

That's why the law should dissociate the "tubes" from the service providers. Let any company operate on the infrastructure with their own policies as long as they rent the lines, and the lines should be traffic agnostic by definition.

What happens when the highest bidder rents up all of the infrastructure?

I believe your suggestion is already practiced with phone carriers. The infrastructure is finite & there are physical bandwidths limitations, at least currently.

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

#353

Post by dragonwriter »

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 this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.

“network freedom” was the FCC’s original name for net neutrality before it shifted to “open internet”; because it protected end-user freedom. Using “net freedom” to refer to the abolition of that protection is, well, about as honest as the rest of the anti-neutrality effort.

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

#354

Post by takeda »

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.

Saving if you mean they are even less incentivised to increase their capacity, because less capacity means more people will purchase those fast lanes?

Don't you understand that the capacity issue was artificially created to push this agenda? There was blog article from level3 showing the capacity issue was coming down to enabling another port[1], perhaps purchasing extra transciever that costs just few thousand (level3 offered to even purchase one for them if they can't afford it)

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140907021805/http://blog.level...

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

#355

Post by omon »

Delmania wrote: post #336
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…

Make no mistake, Pai is a former Verizon lawyer, he's not misled as he is intentionally misleading. He knows very well the ISPs will exploit as much as they can and then rely on a slow legal system to keep it going. He knows very well the ISPs want the benefits of being a monopoly with none of the regulations. Why do you think he prematurely said the states will not be able to pass their own net neutrality laws? The…

He is specifically talking about blocking web traffic, "The answer to the first is we're not sure", not fast lanes. Repealing NN will do that, every time you have regulations you have to hire another team of lawyers and accountants; which only large corporations can afford––it's just another barrier of entry to market.

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

#356

Post by em3rgent0rdr »

marcosdumay wrote: post #328
sambe wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pro-net neutrality and I'm against dishonest marketing, but I think overall it's important to take the higher ground and remain intellectually honest. Doing otherwise results in a mud-slinging contest. Existing regulations are a restriction on the freedom of service providers. That is undeniable. There many cases where we restrict freedoms for the greater good, but I don't like to pretend we are not doing so in t…

> Existing regulations are a restriction on the freedom of service providers. Then go ahead and call it "corporate freedom". The network isn't getting any more free without neutrality.

An ISP doesn't necessarily have to be a corporate entity. It could be a municipality (e.g. city of Chattanooga) or hypothetically owned by residents directly.

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

#357

Post by loup-vaillant »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #356
marcosdumay wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Existing regulations are a restriction on the freedom of service providers. Then go ahead and call it "corporate freedom". The network isn't getting any more free without neutrality.

An ISP doesn't necessarily have to be a corporate entity. It could be a municipality (e.g. city of Chattanooga) or hypothetically owned by residents directly.

> An ISP doesn't necessarily have to be a corporate entity.

In practice, they are. There are exception, but they remain exceptions.

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

#358

Post by loup-vaillant »

sambe wrote: post #319
loup-vaillant wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait a minute, the opposite of net neutrality is called "net freedom "? This is sick (the lack of net neutrality is more likely to reduce freedoms than to promote them). If you remotely support net neutrality, please never use that term again. This is self defeating.

I'm pro-net neutrality and I'm against dishonest marketing, but I think overall it's important to take the higher ground and remain intellectually honest. Doing otherwise results in a mud-slinging contest. Existing regulations are a restriction on the freedom of service providers. That is undeniable. There many cases where we restrict freedoms for the greater good, but I don't like to pretend we are not doing so in t…

> Everyone involved can still either choose an existing provider or set up their own.

As in, for real, in practice? I seriously doubt it, the hurdles are huge, and most deals favours gigantic corporations (bulk often being cheaper than detail).

Try to get a peering agreement with some big provider. Most wouldn't even talk to you if you're not big enough.

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

#359

Post by casefields »

stretchwithme wrote: post #17

In Switzerland, any legislative action can be put on the ballot with enough signatures. Citizens can actually block what the Federal Assembly does. In the US, we get to comment on it. And they get to say "That's nice."

Those type of voter propositions is what we have here in California and how our ballots end up with so many props including all the wacky ones.

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

#360

Post by takeda »

mychael wrote: post #253

I used to support net neutrality. Then I did my homework on the issue and realized so many of the arguments in favor of net neutrality rely on fear-mongering and a false history of the internet.

Could you explain what false history are you taking about?

Internet from the beginning treated all traffic the same, this was because:

- lack of technology to do deep packet inspection at large scale

- competition, during dial-up times anyone with a phone could become an ISP, the phone did not discriminate due to regulation, then ISDN and DSL came and due to regulations telcos were required to lease their lines to anyone keeping the competition

During those times Internet was neutral and all sites were treated the same.

In last decade we switched to cable which has regional monopoly and doesn't have such regulation. They already were used to control what we could see and for how much. Earlier we had to deal with cable because we had no choice. High speed internet came and caused wave of "cord cutters" because people hated how the cable companies treated them. The cable companies do not like that movement, because with Internet they are losing control.

So why not make Internet like a cable? Provide basic access and allow paid access to premium sites. Perhaps consumers wouldn't have to pay, maybe the sites would? And if the users don't like it what they going to do, switch from Comcast to Comcast?

There is also another issue that no one talks about and is even more important. Current cable companies are also media companies and already have power over traditional media (did you wonder why they never talk about NN?).

This change essentially gives them freedom to perform censorship. They can alter/slow down/block sites they don't agree with. This gives them power to decide which sites users will see and which sites will survive and can and will be used for political gains. Imagine replacing ads and cutting income for the site, or replace ads with messages that contradict articles. It slowing down the site to be practically unusable.

I can't believe anyone would be ok with giving power to companies (ones that have monopoly and consumer don't even have choice to vote with their wallets) what sites we are allowed to see or not.

Post reply on HN