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

AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 281 posts

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#91

Post by AGSchneiderman »

gregwtmtno wrote: post #19

Hi Mr. Schneiderman: As a constituent, thank you for your work. I can't help but notice that your office is the only state AG vocally supporting net neutrality. Has your office attempted to coordinate with/gain support of other state's AGs?

Fortunately, it's not just my office that’s publicly supported net neutrality. (My office did submit its own public comment in support of net neutrality because we had an issue we wanted to address that was unique to our experience.) Several other state AGs submitted a comment in support of net neutrality as well (available here: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717283141719/2017.07.17%20Att...)

You are right that a broad bipartisan coalition could make a big difference. Some other state AGs have reached out to us for more information about the problem and about my office’s investigation, and we’re providing information to any of them that want to investigate and act on behalf of their own states’ constituents whose identities were misused.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#92

Post by shortformblog »

Hi Eric, we've seen a lot of back and forth on net neutrality issues between administrations. How do we solidify the ground so it's not tied to one party or another? And if this goes through (as it looks like it will), are there legal recourses that you're prepared to use? This feels like it's going to be a consumer issue as much as a communications issue.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#94

Post by omg_ketchup »

_red wrote: post #41

For those of us who have used the internet 1989 to present, and who are dubious anytime we are told government is taking broad sweeping actions to "protect" us. Please explain the need for this regulation to exist. 1. Please define "network neutrality" - if possible do so without using hand-waving nonsense words, but technical definitions. What strictly defines a "neutrality infraction"? 2. If the internet existed fo…

They should treat the internet like they treat electricity. It doesn't matter if you're using it for a hair dryer or a work light or to charge your phone- you get it the same as everyone else for the same price.

Why aren't we de-regulating power companies too?

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#95

Post by zzzeek »

_red wrote: post #64
jerkstate wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the technical implementation of net neutrality is a ban of traffic policing (dropping prior to complete congestion to signal senders to slow down) for purposes other than "reasonable network management" So Comcast shaping Netflix when Cogent won't pay their share to upgrade their peering point is probably still legal, but they would probably have to go to court to prove that it was "reasonabl…

>My understanding is that the technical implementation of net neutrality is a ban of traffic policing (dropping prior to complete congestion to signal senders to slow down) for purposes other than "reasonable network management" Thanks for the points. A few further thoughts. 1. There are two sides to every connection. Couldn't Netflix itself traffic shape? 2. Can I pay for QoS from an ISP for elevated service (for in…

> actual technical discussion about the matter for the purposes of illustrating to others that its largely an undefined, impossible to enforce concept. In fact, the idea is impossible

NN means an ISP cannot place artificial speed limits on packets that I send or receive, based on the contents of the packets; e.g. the protocol, the port, or the destination address.

NN rules have already existed for several years, for the full specification see http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015... . This is a widely accepted concept so if you want to support your argument that net neutrality is "impossible" you'd need to rebut what this actually says.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#96

Post by djb_hackernews »

panic wrote: post #28

Thanks, AGSchneiderman and staff, for fighting for this issue! Here's a clickable link to the fake comments tool: https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments

Hmm, I just found a comment using my same name (rare, but not unique) but an address for what looks to be an abandoned house in the next town over from where I grew up...

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#97

Post by DiThi »

jerkstate wrote: post #89
jachee wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISPs charge their customers for access. They should not be able to then restrict that access based on their business needs. Just because Netflix competes with Comcast (NBC) doesn't mean Comcast should be able to ignore their customers' desire to consume Netflix content. Because that's what it is. It's not like Netflix is generating petabytes of unsolicited traffic. They're providing the traffic Comcast's (or verizon'…

There used to be a time when content companies needed to carefully select their network transit partners in order to make sure the bits their customers were paying them for had the best chance of reaching them (see: the existence of the CDN industry). It seems that those times are over, and the internet will be legislated to be 100% reliable and capacious..

CDNs are definitely still a thing. Not so much because of "chance of reaching", but because you can't change the speed of light, and having the content closer to the clients is both faster and cheaper.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#98

Post by fosco »

Thank you for your leadership in many areas and especially this one!

on a side note, I live far out east on Long Island and only have one viable option for an ISP that enables me to work, others (like satellite) are not viable for me to vpn to different clients, is there anything I can do to help increase competition out here so myself and neighbors have alternatives to "Optimum online"?

Thank you again I am very happy to see you on this forum!

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#99

Post by nerfhammer »

_red wrote: post #41

For those of us who have used the internet 1989 to present, and who are dubious anytime we are told government is taking broad sweeping actions to "protect" us. Please explain the need for this regulation to exist. 1. Please define "network neutrality" - if possible do so without using hand-waving nonsense words, but technical definitions. What strictly defines a "neutrality infraction"? 2. If the internet existed fo…

> Please explain how is the very same government who allows the communication monopolies to exist, supposed to also ensure that they are "neutral"? It seems awfully convenient that the solutions to problems that government creates is to have more government.

The government "allowing" monopolies to exist is an example of the government NOT doing something. Besides the matter of conflating federal anti-trust, state governments & the FCC as being essentially the same thing, if government intervention is defined to include non-intervention then conveniently literally everything is the government's fault. The government "allowing" the lack of net neutrality is also "more government" by this definition.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#100

Post by AGSchneiderman »

ikeboy wrote: post #14

How do these comments harm real people? Definitely seems shady but I don't really see how using fake names actually hurt anyone.

This is a question I've gotten a lot in recent days -- and I totally get it. When it comes to this issue, I ask people to keep something important in mind: the law protects more than just our physical safety – it protects important intangibles, such as our property interests, our civil rights, our control of our identities, and even our dignity. Fake comments hurt Americans in several ways. First, they deprive those who wish to make their voice heard the ability to do so, by drowning them out or negating their actual view (especially when a fake comment in their name is misused with a comment expressing the opposite view of the one they really hold – we’ve see lots of these). Second, fake comments lead to worse policy outcomes for everyone, because policymakers are acting on incorrect information. Third, fake comments can erode public faith in their government’s legitimacy, which is indispensable in a democracy. Fourth, they are an offense to dignity for many of those whose identities are misused. On the web form my office put up for people to check if their identity was misused and report it, we included a comment form. What we’ve seen is very telling: many New Yorkers, and Americans in other states, are deeply insulted that their identities were misused.
Post reply on HN