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

401–410 of 423 posts

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

#401

Post by Retric »

derefr wrote: post #392
Retric wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's more an abstraction than reality. Frequency hopping means N senders may overlap but the abstraction is independent the IP part of TCP/IP or UDP so the device knows things failed instead of waiting for a timeout on a dropped packet. Thus IP software never sees latency spikes just lowered bandwidth or dropped connections.

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

#402

Post by PhasmaFelis »

ikeboy wrote: post #370
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NN is about regulating the internet. Economists are experts in the domain of regulation. Wait, what? Knowing a lot about regulation in general doesn't mean you know shit about any given subject of regulation in particular. By your logic we should fire the doctors and scientists at the FDA and replace them with economists.

We should, and then they'd probably stop killing tens of thousands of people every year (cf http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php and studies cited within) Or at least have an economist in charge.

It feels like you're going for an economist version of this xkcd. https://xkcd.com/793/

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

#403

Post by ikeboy »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #402
ikeboy wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should, and then they'd probably stop killing tens of thousands of people every year (cf http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php and studies cited within) Or at least have an economist in charge.

It feels like you're going for an economist version of this xkcd. https://xkcd.com/793/

I'm assuming you disagree with the conclusions of the studies cited for the number of deaths caused by the FDA? Any particular reason?

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

#404

Post by austincheney »

inetknght wrote: post #398
austincheney wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

No, they are either electrons pushed across metal with voltage or light bouncing around fiber. This is absolutely not part of the RF spectrum.

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

#405

Post by inetknght »

austincheney wrote: post #404
inetknght wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bits sent across a wire use radio frequency transmission to do it. Bits processed in a routing system are a natural finite resource.

> Bits sent across a wire use radio frequency transmission to do it. No, they are either electrons pushed across metal with voltage or light bouncing around fiber. This is absolutely not part of the RF spectrum.

They are pushed across at a specific frequency.

Regardless, it is still communication. It's very clearly the domain of the Federal Communication Commission. If not, then the FCC is simply named wrong.

Then whose domain does it belong a part of? FTC has clearly rejected the ability to solve neutrality issues.

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

#406

Post by libertyEQ »

int_19h wrote: post #292
hirsin wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Braking and acceleration - once you get x tons of anything moving, it generally wants to keep moving. Trains are tens of times longer than trucks, brake significantly less often, and have a lot more horsepower for acceleration.

The other thing is, you can string wires along the rails relatively easily, and power everything directly with electricity - which offers substantial savings from efficiency of large scale power generation, even accounting for distribution losses. Better yet, you can then use regenerative braking, and feed energy back into the line. I do believe there's some benefit from the tracks themselves as well, though. Surely…

>you can string wires along the rails relatively easily, and power everything directly with electricity -

Except all freight trains in the US have 6600 HP diesel engines, usually ~6-8 engines per 100 cars from what I've seen (which is mostly coal).

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

#407

Post by libertyEQ »

dragonwriter wrote: post #353
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.

> 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.

Is the internet network infrastructure not owned by corporations, and isn't this giving them the freedom to do with their asserts as they see fit?

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

#408

Post by libertyEQ »

jquery wrote: post #379
kenning wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been looking through your comment history and the majority of stuff you say is unsubstantiated, provocative, and immediately refuted by comments 5x longer than yours with a bunch of sources because your original comment sounded informed but was actually way off base. Your six comments on this story fit this pattern as well.

Argumentum by verbosity [1] is a fallacy. So is argumentum via comment history [2]. Maybe you noticed my account is 10x older than yours and couldn’t call me a shill? Perhaps you should lurk a bit longer instead of using the downvote button as a disagree button like it is on the site you came from. You’ll notice even my heavily downvoted posts in this emotional and poltical thread aren’t hidden because I have a long…

I feel like I've read comments of yours I disagreed with before, but in this case we agree completely. I'm not interested in winning a debate per se, but I wish we had more people looking at the fundamental principles at stake here rather than using ends-justify-the-means thinking. The hysteria surrounding this topics seems really odd.

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

#409

Post by int_19h »

libertyEQ wrote: post #406
int_19h wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other thing is, you can string wires along the rails relatively easily, and power everything directly with electricity - which offers substantial savings from efficiency of large scale power generation, even accounting for distribution losses. Better yet, you can then use regenerative braking, and feed energy back into the line. I do believe there's some benefit from the tracks themselves as well, though. Surely…

>you can string wires along the rails relatively easily, and power everything directly with electricity - Except all freight trains in the US have 6600 HP diesel engines, usually ~6-8 engines per 100 cars from what I've seen (which is mostly coal).

US is an outlier in that regard. In other developed countries, railroads are mostly electrified.

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

#410

Post by another-dave »

dx034 wrote: post #307
another-dave wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Haven't heard of shaping before in the UK. I'm not aware there's any form of payment for prioritised traffic, at least not for broadband. On the contrary, BT participates heavily in LINX, the London network exchange. Speed differences will happen though, e.g. I notice that Netflix sometimes tends to be a bit slower but that doesn't improve using a VPN so that I guess it's not BT's fault.

yeah, didn't mean payment for priotisation, just that they may implement throttling for certain types of traffic — BT was also meant as a 'for instance' hypothetical example :)

Can't remember who my ISP was at the time, but definitely have hit times when (especially gaming) would be fast & then would hit a wall suddenly. That said, seems to happen less recently, was more in early broadband days.

Post reply on HN