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

121–130 of 281 posts

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

#121

Post by DiThi »

jerkstate wrote: post #112
DiThi wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given perfect reliability, faster (lower latency) doesn’t matter for streaming video because all of the traffic is pipelined (even for live, encoding lag would dominate the few hundred ms maximum delay from light speed). And the user already paid their ISP for the bandwidth, so why would distance factor into the cost?

The user paid for internet access, but streaming video services pay too. The more distance there is, the more effort may be required to guarantee some minimum speed, and in some cases may not even be possible. Internet sea cables are not unlimited. Net Neutrality means you treat packets equally[0], not that you can put an unlimited amount of them.

But if the user can get a faster speed through a VPN than without (as it has happened with Netflix vs Verizon), the tubes are NOT the limit, but a clear violation of Net Neutrality.

[0] As in: if shaping is done, you don't look at the source, destination or content.

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

#122

Post by freedomben »

Hello and thank you for taking the time to do this. My question:

Do you see net neutrality as the end-all solution to this, or would further regulation/deregulation be required beyond simply creating these rules? Also, is there a place for deregulation of ISPs and infrastructure to allow for more free-market competition?

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

#123

Post by _red »

nerfhammer wrote: post #99
_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 gov…

>The government "allowing" monopolies to exist is an example of the government NOT doing something.

The FCC strictly controls who can use wireless spectrum for the purposes of protecting the monopoly status of those who pay big bucks to buy spectrum from their auctions.

Further, you do know that ATT was once a national / quasi-govt run monopoly?

Lastly, its not just the Feds, CLEC / ILEC classifications at the local level virtually ensure only the big players can ever call themselves a "phone company".

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

#124

Post by 0xfeba »

AGSchneiderman wrote: post #110
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #29

Dear Attorney General, I am beyond thrilled to see you on our forum. You're a gem to our country and make me proud to be a New Yorker and an American. In your review of this forum's discussions on net neutrality, what do we consistently miss, exaggerate or get sidetracked by? Are there technical projects we can contribute to or technical problems take on that would help you defend net neutrality? Thank you again, fro…

Wow – I’m honored! The volcano of bad ideas coming out of this administration has kept me busy on a lot of fronts, so I haven’t had as much time as I’d like to keep myself up to date on the boards here. But I can say that my staff – especially in my Bureau of Internet & Technology – does try to keep up on the news in tech and any potential problems we need to address. My understanding from them is that the tech commu…

> Bureau of Internet & Technology

BIT, I see. How refreshing to see a non-strained and more importantly, non-Orwellian acronym come from the US/a State government.

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

#125

Post by wildmusings »

Mr. Schneiderman, it seems to me that what you’re proposing, holding up the regulatory process because some people faked comments, would create a highly perverse incentive for those opposed to a particular action to submit fake comments appearing to support that action.

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

#126

Post by arca_vorago »

Mr. Schneiderman, what power does the NY AGs office actually have to halt or slow this egregious deriliction of duty on the part of the FCC and it's chairman, and under what specific laws?

More generally, it seems that petition and protest do very little to change congress's stance on subjects of importantance to it's real constituencies, the people, as shown by multiple studies and events. Does this potentially violate any laws and which, and if so why has prosecutorial discretion been exercised so frequently with the rich and powerful (cabinet members, congress, bankers etc) while minorities and the poor are almost never afforded it?

Finally, if the repeal of net neutrality is passed, what recourse is there for the people, your office, or any other relevant office?

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

#127

Post by tooltalk »

nerfhammer wrote: post #99
_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 gov…

No, what he means is, in NY for instance, cable operators must agree to state, city franchise agreement to do business there and that's how we end up with the communication monopolies/oligarchy locally. It's an artificial barrier erected by gov't that ultimately inhibits competition -- all in the name of public interest.

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

#128

Post by AGSchneiderman »

natch wrote: post #82

Hi Mr. Schneiderman: There are some great questions on here. I'm afraid the time window for this AMA is just too short to do them justice! Any chance you could pop back on here again over the next few days answer a few more of the best questions?

Not finished yet -- I'll be in and out today to answer your questions. Thanks to all for taking the time to join me.

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

#129

Post by [deleted] »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #56
_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…

I am not speaking about the rest of your points (just don't have time right now), but I did want to note that the "the Internet existed w/o net neutrality" argument really frustrates me. The Internet of today isn't the Internet of a year ago, let alone the "~20 year" time frame you mention. Yes-- the Internet of 20 years ago didn't need regulation because the profit potential was minimal. It only makes sense, with mo…

[deleted]

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

#130

Post by RpFLCL »

AGSchneiderman wrote: post #117
RpFLCL wrote: post #33

Can you briefly expand on what congress is capable of doing to delay or stop this? I would like to be able to convey specific actions I want to see from my representatives, but I currently only feel comfortable asking "please do something!" Are we to demand that they require the FCC delay the vote until your investigation has concluded? Do they have that authority? I was under the impression that the telecom lobby wa…

On Congress: Many members of Congress have already spoken up and called on the FCC to halt the process until the problems with public comments can be investigated. I hope more of our elected officials in Washington take up that call. If enough members of Congress support net neutrality, especially if it is a bipartisan group, then I believe the FCC is less likely to repeal the strong Title II net neutrality protectio…

So it's not a matter of demanding my representatives create new legislation, so much as it is trying to convince them to make my voice (our voices) heard on the national stage. That makes sense.
Post reply on HN