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

381–390 of 423 posts

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

#381

Post by creaghpatr »

usaar333 wrote: post #193
throwaway5752 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're a dope if you don't vote. It's impolite to mention this, but it is not a political problem, but a Republican problem. A Democratic administration's FCC enacted Net Neutrality, a Republican one is attempting to dismantle it. Vote for Democrats at every level of government, in every election possible. This will change some day, but today the Republican party has lost its mind and morals. To be clear, I'm not cal…

> Vote for Democrats at every level of government, in every election possible. And this is why a lot of us feel powerless with this issue. I live in an area where every elected official from local to federal is a Democrat. (obvious exception being the president, a Republican that actually lost the popular vote by 3 million). Needless to say, my federal representatives strongly support NN.. but they are in the minorit…

You can lobby the Democrats to change their platform from identity politics to economic issues and then they won’t alienate the voters that left them in 2016.

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

#382

Post by notyourday »

dragonwriter wrote: post #351
notyourday wrote: post #204

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. 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.

There's zero discrimination in here. It is basic network engineering:

1. Terminate transit on transit-edge. All routes form transit edge get preference X.

2. Terminate peering routes on peering-edge. All routes from peering edge get preference Y.

Oh wait ma, I have traffic engineering and it matches $$. Aint life grand? NN rules are what happens when dilettantes who have never seen a 20U sized router are in charge of writing rules about networks.

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

#383

Post by notyourday »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #349
notyourday wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. >…

> 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.

ISPs do not care about charging customers for tiered packages - policies are too difficult to implement. It is much easier to charge Google, Netflix and Facebook. Single point of contact, single large payment and if Google/Fb/Netflix don't pay ability to deliver real pain.

> 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.

That is the solution and it is something that needed to be started twenty years ago. If we started it at that time, we would not even be having this conversation because ISPs would be highly competitive utilities. The problem is that building networks, digging ditches, mounting routers and dealing with customers is not as sexy as launching HotOrNot or SnapChat.

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

#384

Post by kakarot »

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 thought the rule in particular was, that was adopted in 2015, was very premature banning something that's simply didn't exist.

If I had to start a new society tomorrow and I needed a quick list of things that should be illegal, I think I could figure out things like "Don't rape, murder, or steal" before having to actually witness someone rape, murder, or steal.

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

#385

Post by kakarot »

sologoub wrote: post #368
revelation wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where we get into the difficulty of what is net neutrality . Taking compensation for a peering agreement is perfectly fine if it's imbalanced. What net neutrality should prevent is, ceteris paribus, asking for $X from YouTube and $Y >> $X from Netflix because you figure your dying cable business will benefit from less competition. Ideally, net neutrality would be FRAND for peering agreements: you can't deny a…

It’s absolutely not fine if your customers are already paying you specifically to connect to Netflix, which is an extremely common use and why we have the bottleneck in the first place. The imbalance of the traffic has little to do with what we have here, since the telco is specifically paid to deliver that traffic by consumers. Charging on both ends is very profitable, but is definitely double-dipping. Your phone pr…

If I operate a large network, I would want authority over how much bandwidth I provide to each neighboring network. That seems like a reasonable demand.

I would want the authority to choose to peer with who I want, but if someone doesn't want to peer with me at market rate, then they won't experience "degraded" service coming through other networks that I peer with indiscriminately.

If you think this isn't fair, I would like to hear why.

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

#386

Post by inetknght »

austincheney wrote: post #295
inetknght wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.fcc.gov/about/overview > The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the Commission is the federal agency responsible for implementing and enforcing America’s communications law and regu…

> I am real curious why people think that the Internet, which is a communication medium, is not within the regulatory authority of the FCC. Despite the name the FCC does not regulate communications. The FCC regulates spectrum and interstate commerce thereof. Despite the definition on the FCC.gov site and the Wikipedia page the FCC cannot regulate cable even if they wanted to as mentioned by both Pai and Wheeler.

I'd like to know more about the decisions that led to this then. It seems to me like that's exactly what the FCC is supposed to be regulating.

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

#387

Post by likelynew »

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).

In a way the law tries to accomplish this by limiting ways like guns, bombs and sometimes doing checks randomly or based on suspicion.

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

#388

Post by mychael »

takeda wrote: post #360
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 an…

For ~20 years the internet somehow functioned well without title ii regulations. So yes, I agree with you that "Internet from the beginning treated all traffic the same" and "During those times Internet was neutral and all sites were treated the same". Ajit Pai's proposal seeks to roll back these relatively new title 2 regulations.

> 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.

Likewise, I can't see why anyone would give more power to government (especially those who don't support the current government) to decide what is "fair" and "neutral".

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

#389

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#390

Post by austincheney »

inetknght wrote: post #386
austincheney wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am real curious why people think that the Internet, which is a communication medium, is not within the regulatory authority of the FCC. Despite the name the FCC does not regulate communications. The FCC regulates spectrum and interstate commerce thereof. Despite the definition on the FCC.gov site and the Wikipedia page the FCC cannot regulate cable even if they wanted to as mentioned by both Pai and Wheeler.

I'd like to know more about the decisions that led to this then. It seems to me like that's exactly what the FCC is supposed to be regulating.

Then you would be wrong. The FCC was created to regulate and license access to the RF spectrum, because radio frequencies are a natural finite resource.
Post reply on HN