Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

391–400 of 423 posts

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

#391

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 behin…

I see very little reason to think that persuading people by rational argument is an effective way to make policy happen.

[deleted]

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

#392
post #304
post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people could get faster service than they do today, in the sense that a given flow (e.g. VoIP data) might go from having equal QoS priority to having higher QoS priority, meaning that under congestion , their flow might go from being slow (before) to being the-speed-they're-paying-for. Of course, that would come at the expense of other flows (e.g. BitTorrent) having lower relative QoS priority, making them slowe…

Only with a poorly designed routing, networks, and VoIP systems. Routers can't cache meaningful amounts of network traffic, so assuming ~zero dropped packets you degrade bandwidth not latency. VoIP works fine with even minimal bandwidth so that's not an issue. Dropped packets are a sign of poorly designed networks at which point you can't assume QoS will improve things. The added complexity might make things worse fo…

Keep in mind, cellular carrier stations (cell towers) don't just become congested; they're oversubscribed, pretty much all the time. Each level of cell service has essentially an SLA for minimum voice quality per line—which can be modelled as each customer having a fixed bandwidth allocation. So, at a given service tier, you can sacrifice latency (which doesn't work for real-time protocols) or drop packets (which is what ends up happening), but you can't just lower the available bandwidth of the channel. The [hardware!] voice codecs are built to assume the bandwidth when they're on a given cellular network standard—they're essentially emulating circuit-switching!

All that being said, that's why cell networks, until 4G, used actual circuits for voice, rather than having it be packet-based; and that's why 4G+ networks use IMS (a layer 1+2+3 protocol suite that all middle boxes are aware of for QoS purposes) rather than just relying on layer-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiated_services QoS fields (which are handled by full layer-3 switches within a given LAN, but get dropped the moment the packet crosses onto the public Internet and are just ignored by layer-2 switches.)

(And even on large LANs—like your cable provider's ATM network—DiffServ tags aren't relied upon, because QoS is just so much easier when layers 1 and 2 are aware of it. If you get a IP phone line from your ISP, it'll be using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprotocol_Label_Switching tags instead, to give its packets QoS priority across even the dumbest middleboxes.)

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

#393
post #66
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my other comment, that's not what those charts say. Less than half of those economists surveyed think that net neutrality is bad policy.

There's a significant number of uncertain ones but those should be excluded, and then the ones against NN significantly outnumber the ones in favor. I don't see any other reasonable way to spin that.

> There's a significant number of uncertain ones but those should be excluded

That's not how polling works. Well, unless your plan is to twist the results to fit your desired narrative.

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

#394

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 bottom line is that he's flat-out lying.

Pre-2015, ISPs weren't classified under Title II. The unspoken (and occasionally spoken, when disagreements came up) agreement was that the ISPs wouldn't violate net neutrality principles, and the FCC would leave them alone and not classify them under Title II (which introduces more pain for ISPs than just net neutrality concerns).

In 2015, Verizon decided not to play ball anymore, and start violating net neutrality principles. They won a court case saying that the FCC couldn't regulate them in this way without Title II. They thought they had the political/lobbying clout to avoid the Title II classification despite that. Turns out they were wrong.

So clearly Pai has his agenda and is just lying to support it. ISPs have absolutely tried to do fast-lane-style bullshit in the past, and were stopped first by the threat of Title II, and then later by Title II itself.

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

#395
post #393
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a significant number of uncertain ones but those should be excluded, and then the ones against NN significantly outnumber the ones in favor. I don't see any other reasonable way to spin that.

> There's a significant number of uncertain ones but those should be excluded That's not how polling works. Well, unless your plan is to twist the results to fit your desired narrative.

Assuming you're building a policy off of poll responses, how would percent of uncertainty change the policy? It's not clear to me that it should. If it's possible to test, then maybe higher uncertainty should mean you spend more on testing before rolling out policies, but otherwise I don't see what else you'd do with it. Could you enlighten me on what you would do?

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

#396
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.

That might not be a fast lane, but it's certainly an anti-competitive practice that reduces consumer choice and nudges them toward the "free" services.

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

#397
post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He was asked two questions then began his response with “the answer to the first is”, I think it’s much more reasonable to interpret that as the first question.

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

#398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bits sent across a wire use radio frequency transmission to do it.

Bits processed in a routing system are a natural finite resource.

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

#399
post #361

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…

eat shit you communist slime

Happy Thanksgiving. May you and your loved ones have an enjoyable holiday.

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

#400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a delightfully simplistic view of politics. You know about the Blue Dogs, right?

He's posting from "throwaway" which means he knows his entire statement is completely biased and absurd. As if voting "D" without knowing a thing about the candidate is a good idea.

Yes. I'm posting from a "throwaway" which is 5 times older than your account, has almost 15 times as much karma, and contains exactly the same amount of personally identifiable information.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Post reply on HN