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

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#411

Post by jacobrobbins »

Someone1234 wrote: post #210
juris wrote: post #135

This wouldn't be a problem if ISP's weren't de facto monopolies. If there was competition in this space, then there would be incentive to improve the infrastructure and Internet speeds. However, ISP's kill competition by making legal arrangements with local governments to only do business with them, and by cutting competitors' cables. Since we have no way to guarantee reasonable speeds to small time websites now, we…

The "last mile" is a utility, and by its very nature will always result in monopolistic control. It is impractical and irrational to wire up a home to multiple ISPs with their own fiber channels. Each channel could cost tens of thousands to install. Instead the "last mile" should be a non-profit funded by ISPs who lease the channels. The non-profit is responsible for installing the "last mile," upgrading it, and repa…

cars cost "tens of thousands" yet personal automobile ownership has been feasible and has a huge positive impact on the economy. If that 10-90K ballpark cost estimate is accurate then accessing the information superhighway could be a similar situation.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#412

Post by muninn_ »

maehwasu wrote: post #385
vmarsy wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a private citizen, can I purchase a bunch of land between me and, I dunno, a DNS node or whatever and just lay a super long fiber cable straight to it? I'm sure you can, the issue is do you have a couple million $ in your bank account to do this?

I do; want to come and hang out on my compound?

Sure

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#413

Post by make3 »

alexpetralia wrote: post #387

Can someone clarify this for me? Perhaps my assumptions are incorrect: > 1. Bandwidth is limited > 2. Real-time streaming services, such as video, consume much more bandwidth (by sending more packets through the pipeline) than non-streaming services > 3. Net neutrality guarantees that each packet is delivered with the same priority Say Netflix takes up 20% of the bandwidth through its streaming services - each packet…

Missing from your equation is the important fact that people usually pay for the bandwidth they use, and that that's how bandwidth is split amongst people. Once they paid for it, I'm sure you'll agree it's really their business how they use it.

Net neutrality prevents the ISPs from selling bundles where some sites are discounted, and from throttling or blocking some sites.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#414

Post by [deleted] »

maehwasu wrote: post #385
vmarsy wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a private citizen, can I purchase a bunch of land between me and, I dunno, a DNS node or whatever and just lay a super long fiber cable straight to it? I'm sure you can, the issue is do you have a couple million $ in your bank account to do this?

I do; want to come and hang out on my compound?

[deleted]

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#415

Post by Delmania »

alexpetralia wrote: post #387

Can someone clarify this for me? Perhaps my assumptions are incorrect: > 1. Bandwidth is limited > 2. Real-time streaming services, such as video, consume much more bandwidth (by sending more packets through the pipeline) than non-streaming services > 3. Net neutrality guarantees that each packet is delivered with the same priority Say Netflix takes up 20% of the bandwidth through its streaming services - each packet…

This would be a valid concern if, and only if, the growth of the bandwidth consumed by the streaming services exceeded the growth of the available bandwidth, which is not the case.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#416

Post by beamatronic »

pishpash wrote: post #357
noetic_techy wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree. Who cares if the worst case scenario is tiered pricing, as long as their is REAL competition, a competitor can come along and say "we offer it all for one flat fee because our infrastructure is better." Boom, done. These municipal exclusion deals are the real problem. I also think this is going to backfire and bite the telco's in the ass if they try to roll out tiers. The legislative outcry when joe…

A rather naïve reading. People are stupid. They may even prefer the "simplicity" of tiered packages. They'll roll over.

Ok everyone, it's been fun. See you on America Online!

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#417

Post by karyon »

alexpetralia wrote: post #387

Can someone clarify this for me? Perhaps my assumptions are incorrect: > 1. Bandwidth is limited > 2. Real-time streaming services, such as video, consume much more bandwidth (by sending more packets through the pipeline) than non-streaming services > 3. Net neutrality guarantees that each packet is delivered with the same priority Say Netflix takes up 20% of the bandwidth through its streaming services - each packet…

you seem to assume that the bandwidth used by netflix is fixed. however, what actually happens on network saturation (given net neutrality) is that both netflix and non-netflix content will slow down. netflix watchers will see buffering or will get a lower resolution.

that is the point of net neutrality: handling packets on a non-discriminatory best-effort basis. if the "channel is stuffed", then a certain percentage of all the packets in the channel, including the netflix ones, will be dropped.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#418

Post by idibidiart »

bennettfeely wrote: post #258
idibidiart wrote: post #93

If we stage a nation-wide boycot of Amazon, Walmart.com, and a few other big retailers (and stop using Google, Bing et al) I can almost guarantee it that they will move mountains to bring back net neutrality. You have to get the big corporations a profit motive to get anything done in this country.

Who is "we"? People who read Hacker News? Yeah that will surely change things.

"We" is "we who get others onboard"? No point in being a pessimist.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#419

Post by jasonellis »

komali2 wrote: post #300
juris wrote: post #135

This wouldn't be a problem if ISP's weren't de facto monopolies. If there was competition in this space, then there would be incentive to improve the infrastructure and Internet speeds. However, ISP's kill competition by making legal arrangements with local governments to only do business with them, and by cutting competitors' cables. Since we have no way to guarantee reasonable speeds to small time websites now, we…

I've been thinking this over for the past couple months, because I was pretty sure this would be the outcome - that we would lose our net neutrality protection. So let's play out the worse case - Comcast, AT&T etc wait out the shitstorm and then start throttling traffic and packaging the internet, releasing cable-esque "plans." Is it feasible to just start running our own fiber to hubs? I want to learn more about the…

If you're looking to actually do this, look into wireless broadband: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_broadband

There are currently small operations that offer wireless broadband by putting the receiving equipment on your roof (sometimes they give you a discount if you serve as a repeater) and they purchase wireless data from larger companies' cell towers.

Post reply on HN