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

481–490 of 1001 posts

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

#481

Post by ksk »

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…

Its not so simple. NN is not political, its commercial, and partly technical. One main sticking point is that ISPs don't want to pay for asymmetric peering. If you're sending more traffic on my network and I'm sending you almost none, I need to have larger 'pipes' to accommodate your traffic, but you don't, for my outgoing traffic. So, If peering were 'settlement free', as Netflix wants, that is beneficial for Netflix but not for Comcast. Also, any network, already has several routes for any given packet. By default, you HAVE to do some prioritization. Traffic internal to the ISP will always be prioritized. So if I were an ISP and I became a content provider, obviously my packets will be "cheaper/faster" to route than incoming NetFlix/Hulu, etc etc.

The above is just a supersuper simplified summary of some points off the top of my head. There are tons of nuances, which are more suitable for a detailed blog post, and not a comment. I'm sure someone has done that already.

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

#482

Post by komali2 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #377
komali2 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Powerless Same, so as a petty man I've made a personal vow to send Ajit Pai a card every Christmas reminding him he sold his soul to Comcast and that I will never forget or forgive him for it. Totally pointless right now when the whole country is calling for his head and he gets to play the haughty "I don't give a fuck, I'm set for life now, suck it plebes" card. But in 2040, when he has long since moved on, and the…

Any way we could build this into something more large scale? How can we do this in a way that doesn't fall afoul of harassment laws?

If by "large scale" you mean "lots of people doing it," the only way I can think of is making it easier and telling people.

Making it easier: https://www.mailmygov.com/

Telling people: Turn to your right and tell your coworker, I guess. Make a twitter post?

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

#483

Post by supermdguy »

briga wrote: post #404

Here's my question: why was such a momentous decision decided by a board of five people? A decision that will affect hundreds of millions of people was decided by five people. Isn't that insane? Whatever happened to democracy in America?

America is not a democracy. It's a representative democracy.

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

#484

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#485

Post by [deleted] »

crisdux wrote: post #452
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'm always surprised that folks on here don't think about the future of last mile connectivity being wireless, instead of wired. Next generation wireless networks (5G) are poised to have broadband like speeds, faster latency, and high bandwidth. Wireless operators have been pretty explicit in that their plan to get into the home broadband game. These networks are a few years away from a broad roll out, AT&T is starti…

[deleted]

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

#486

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#487

Post by Filligree »

Corrado wrote: post #458
crisdux wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always surprised that folks on here don't think about the future of last mile connectivity being wireless, instead of wired. Next generation wireless networks (5G) are poised to have broadband like speeds, faster latency, and high bandwidth. Wireless operators have been pretty explicit in that their plan to get into the home broadband game. These networks are a few years away from a broad roll out, AT&T is starti…

I agree, to some extent, but I'm not sure if wireless will ever be able to give me gigabit speed with sub 10ms latency. If that's possible, then I'm ready to sign up right now!

It can give you that. Unfortunately, it can't give everyone that.

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

#488

Post by ad_hominem »

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…

> 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? Who do I have to pay at the node to get to "plug into" it or whatever?

You'll have to buy transit from someone, which will most likely be terminated at a neutral internet exchange / data center. You'll pay the transit provider (e.g. Hurricane Electric) for the bandwidth, and monthly fees to the data center for colocation and the cross-connect.

To get that transit back to a point of presence from where you'll branch out service to end users, you'll either have to bury your own fiber (very expensive - tens of thousands of $ per mile even in rural areas not to mention maintenance costs), lease fiber through someone else (e.g. Zayo) (also very expensive), or use wireless backhauls (cheaper but wireless comes with its own set of headaches).

Also you'll have to get a CCNA yourself or pay someone to manage your network since a carrier network is nothing like a home network.

Now by the time you get service back to your point of presence, you'll have to figure out how to get it to people. Burying fiber is extremely expensive, no way around it. Fixed wireless is a simpler option but getting a line of sight to the customer isn't always feasible, and you'll never have the bandwidth of fiber.

That's assuming people even want it. Out in a semi-rural area there may not be much competition, but the population density is so low putting up a tower or burying fiber may not be viable. In any city you're likely to have cable or DSL companies already there, with a price point that may be difficult to convince people to switch. Most people won't care about philosophical arguments about net neutrality, or be willing to pay a lot more for higher speeds.

In my opinion your best bet is to rally a coalition of people in your area to petition the municipality to bury the fiber and provide it as a utility. If you're uncomfortable with the gov't being an ISP, there is a very interesting model where the city provides an open access network which lets private ISPs plug in as virtual network layers, letting customers easily switch providers: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/what-...

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

#489

Post by nickik »

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…

Its a very intersting issue and sadly the debate is always very limited.

Fundamentally it makes absolute sense to have different priorities for different packets. Just like in any logistics you have different priorities for different application. In logistics usually the costumer demands some level of services and if he pays the needed amount he can get what he wants. Most people don't think this is bad. So fundamentally there is nothing wrong.

The IP protocol has this idea backed in already, and inside controlled organisation this is already pretty standard.

The problem happens when you have ISP who without their costumers input make arbitrary choices about the importance of packets. Not only because they don't really know what my needs are also because it requires the ISP to open up each package and analyse what is inside.

Even that might still be OK if there were a truly competitive market in ISPs. If one ISP does not suit you you can move on, enforcing discipline in the whole system. That would still be problematic because applications would then have to make specialised deals with the ISP to get high quality service for specific application rather then making that choice when you send a package.

In practice however ISP for historical, regulatory and economic reason are in a monopoly position allowing them sit in the middle and make money on both sides. This primary what Net Neutrality tries to fix. Providers that are in these positions, like Comcast, would like nothing more then to have Net Neutrality removed. Providers that are in a highly competitive market have far less to gain.

Even worse, then strictly about net neutrality, once the technology is in place ISP also start to act in other ways, for example injecting advertisements into your websites, breaking TLS and so on.

So really I am against Net Neutrality in general, but I would still not have removed it in the current situation.

The solution for me is actually a different one. Quite simply, ISP should not be allowed to open up your packages, just like the post office is also not allowed to do so. They should be allowed to sell you different quality of service in whatever pricing model they wish but it is the costumer who makes the choice about what he wants to do.

Monopoly would still be an issue in that case the potential damage would be way lower.

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

#490

Post by JohnTHaller »

RyanZAG wrote: post #467
JohnTHaller wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't. I live in NYC. I have access to exactly one broadband provider. So, if Spectrum starts blocking Vonage because they want you to pay for their VoIP instead (ISPs in the US have done this in the past), I'll have to drop Vonage and use Spectrum's VoIP. Repeat for blocking P2P, Google Wallet, Facetime, Netflix, etc (all of which have previous incidents in the US).

As someone from a country without net neutrality, I have to say this hasn't happened. Generally you get very cheap or free plans that are sponsored by Facebook or others that give priority to Facebook, but ISPs are always happy to take a little bit more money for an unlimited plan that gives you full access. And at least in my country, they're not unreasonably priced. Even without net neutrality, your single monopoly…

Every example I gave in my comment you are replying to are things that a US ISP did prior to the implementation of net neutrality. Even during net neutrality multiple ISPs were caught artificially throttling Netflix to attempt to get payouts.
Post reply on HN