Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

191–200 of 281 posts

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

#191

Do know of any resources that explain Net Neutrality in a non-partisan, clear, concise manner? My dad is under the impression that Net Neutrality is bad because "the government has no business with the Internet." I'd like to provide him with some good information to try to sway his mind, but most simple explanations I can find are comedic in nature (John Oliver, The Oatmeal webcomic), or are from a "liberal source."…

Net Neutrality generally means ISPs must treat all packets they deliver the same.

In other words, a cat photo is treated just as important as a military document being transferred to a general.

That's it.

There's Net Neutrality regulation, which varies in complexity, but Net Neutrality itself is a fairly simple concept.

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

#192
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose you're a new ISP. Explain what is the cost of complying with NN regulation.

To a new ISP, I'd say budget %10 of subscriber fees to regulatory costs till you reach 5-10k subs.

I mean, what would you use that budget for? Why would it need to be 10%? I'd say it's 0%.

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

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

great, maybe you can provide evidence to back up your claim that gamers can (accurately) determine which party is in breach of a peering agreement

Ok, if you run a traceroute from both sides you can determine both paths (generally). If you use mtr or something like that along the way you'll usually see some "bright lines" in latency/loss/etc. Its not bulletproof but generally works. That said - a peering agreement can have a variety of terms so a gamer isn't likely to be privvy to that. But if you see latency and loss on a certain link, you've likely identified…

I don't dispute that you can usually locate the link that's saturated if you can traceroute from both sides. I think we both agree that an end user can't figure out which end of the link is not holding up their end of the contract.

Good on you for getting a big telco to live up to their agreement. I doubt that lack of tenacity is the problem in cases having to do with large isp/video streaming/cdn players.

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

#194

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…

you are so ignorant. "our forum". net neutrality has become a partisan wedge issue.

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/fcc-s-plan-to-toss-n...

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

#195

Do know of any resources that explain Net Neutrality in a non-partisan, clear, concise manner? My dad is under the impression that Net Neutrality is bad because "the government has no business with the Internet." I'd like to provide him with some good information to try to sway his mind, but most simple explanations I can find are comedic in nature (John Oliver, The Oatmeal webcomic), or are from a "liberal source."…

Net Neutrality is like preventing the US Post office from providing express delivery as the extra speed comes at the expense of regular delivery and there is a risk that only big companies would be able to pay for the service.

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

#196
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Comcast’s case, the congested pipe was just the connection between Level3’s network and Comcast's. Level3 and Comcast had an existing settlement-free peering agreement (no money paid in either direction), and Level3 wanted to keep it that way, but Comcast wanted to start charging Level3, arguing that it was sending it far more traffic than it was receiving. Level3 argued that it shouldn’t have to pay because (most…

Thanks, that article completely illustrates what I'm talking about. > Who paid for the delivery of all this on-net traffic, then? The customers. In Level 3's case, this means that CDN customers like Netflix would pay Level 3, while Comcast's cable modem subscribers would pay Comcast. Very simple, very clean, and according to Level 3 now, this is the way the Internet should be connected. > But after winning the Netfli…

What you say is true. But the counterarguments are:

- At least according to Level3, it was not standard practice in the industry to charge for peering (not transit - the final destination for the packets was in Comcast's network), regardless of traffic ratios.

- You could say that it should be standard practice, but that would be unfortunate because Comcast effectively has a monopoly on fast connections to its own customers. Since it's much easier for consumers to switch video services than ISPs, failing to reach a deal would be much worse for Netflix/Level3 than for Comcast - so there would be little preventing Comcast from charging as much as it wanted.

This was more true in 2010 when Netflix hadn't yet started creating original series. These days it arguably has more leverage due to being the exclusive provider of those series... but it would still be a huge risk, a huge money-loser for them to walk away from Comcast, or any other ISP, and get into a cable-blackout-like situation. Anyway, cable blackouts feel distinctly unlike how the 'open' Internet is supposed to work. Netflix is one thing, but what about, say, would-be competitors to Netflix that currently have few customers and almost no leverage?

- It would also arguably be double charging - charging consumers and backbone providers for the same packets. If you buy "Internet access" with 100Mbps download speed, but that actually means "100Mbps down from companies that pay the toll", are you really getting what you paid for? Admittedly, transit providers have similar practices, but the level of competition for transit makes that less of an issue.

- Also, most Comcast end-user connections have much higher download speed than upload speed, so even if users were saturating their (paid-for) connections in both directions talking to Level3, Level3 would still be sending more data than it received. In other words, rules about sending and receiving similar amounts of data never really made sense for peering between a consumer ISP and a backbone provider, even if this was less visible in the past.

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

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the overlap between those is muddled for a few reasons: 1. Zero rating. Wikipedia+facebook is free, everything else counts towards the cap. This was a subject of major debate in India. 2. First party zero rating - YouTube and Vonage count towards the cap, your ISP's streaming video or VOIP service does not. 3. Negotiated zero rating. "binge on" and similar, which is basically vendor neutral but limits the typ…

Why is #2 a violation of NN, but #4 is not? Does it really matter if the video is transferred using IP on top of "internet" frequencies, or IP on top of "video" frequencies, or QAM on "video" frequencies?

In #2 the service is delivered over IP and the same last mile wires as other internet traffic. It's not "the internet", but it competes directly with the internet for last mile bandwidth, just like a Netflix or YouTube cache installed on the ISP's network.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/11/comca...

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

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the overlap between those is muddled for a few reasons: 1. Zero rating. Wikipedia+facebook is free, everything else counts towards the cap. This was a subject of major debate in India. 2. First party zero rating - YouTube and Vonage count towards the cap, your ISP's streaming video or VOIP service does not. 3. Negotiated zero rating. "binge on" and similar, which is basically vendor neutral but limits the typ…

I agree with your comment, and propose the following test, which will yield the same conclusions. Given a scenario, ask the following: "If enforced, will this give the users a financial incentive to pick one information source on the Net over another to get the same content?" If the answer is YES, then the scenario is a violation of net neutrality principles. So for the 4 scenarios you listed, the answers would be YE…

For #3 that's not strictly true - while the policy doesn't discriminate by vendor, it does discriminate by content type and by packet sniffing capabilities. For example, unlimited video uses the same bandwidth as a VPN downloading at the same speed as the video's bitrate, and are equal from a network management perspective - but they get vastly different treatment towards your data cap.
Post reply on HN