I wonder just one thing, why Google, Facebook, Amazon and Netflix didn't do real move about this?
F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
701–710 of 1001 posts
Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
#702Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As a private citizen, can I (snip) just lay a super long fiber cable straight to (the internet). Yes. I worked on a startup ISP for a few years, which attempted to do this. It's actually really easy to do : 1) Pick a point where you can get connection to the internet. (Backhaul). This is usually a phone companies central office, but it can also be at a data centre or other point of presence. 2) Run fiber cable from…
I wonder if this would be feasible at the neighborhood level via Home owners association. The neighborhood gets a tower and microwave link to a backhaul station, and provides internet via wifi or wires to the neighborhood. I think our neighboorhood is about 130 houses. probably not enough to make it cost effective. On the flip side, maybe starting a local company to provide LOS microwave hookups to the various neighb…
No need to do wireless.
Contrary to the claims made if one is to remove municipal blocks fiber is very easy and very cheap to install. What makes fiber installation expensive is municipal regulations
Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
#703Common response on HN for the past two months has been nothing short of hyperbolic. "The world will end if NN is repealed". Speaking as a conservative: When Obama was president, I got told the same thing about the ACA. The world will end, the sky is falling, America is finished. But eight years later, here I am, nothing's that much worse. I have no reason to believe this is "the beginning of the end" of anything. Lif…
USA democracy is failing and this is something to freak out about.
USA is a democratic republic...
Also, USA is the world empire AKA superpower.
Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
#704Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is hilariously naive. You're essentially pointing fingers and laughing at people who you esteem to be less intelligent than yourself while making pretty absurd statements that have little to no basis in actual fact For instance the original, and probably fatal, blow to net neutrality was the 1996 Telecommunications act that was passed mainly to encourage "wire to wire competition", which has since become a total…
One day the people may wake up to realize some things. Like voting R or D does not matter because they share the same di5k to eff you with. There is no difference between the two parties. None. The rhetoric is different but the actual voting records show they are the same animal. Beholden to the same military industrial complex/corporate masters. They may also realize that if voting actually changed anything it would…
> There is no difference between the two parties. None. The rhetoric is different but the actual voting records show they are the same animal.
Er, no, actual voting records of Congress and regulatory agencies like the FCC show a whole host of issues on which the parties are very different.
Including, relevant to this discussion, the consistent absolute partisan split on net neutrality at the FCC.
Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
#705The voters elected a Republican government. That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine. Anybody who told you that lobbying the FCC was going to make a difference here was, whether they meant to or not, selling a bill of goods. As someone who respects but mostly profoundly disagrees with principled Republican la…
> But otherwise, be clear-eyed: elections have consequences. We elected the party of deregulation. Take the bad with whatever the good is, and work to flip the House back. What I'm bitter about is that my vote, as a californian, is worth a tiny fraction of a vote in a swing state. Republican lawmakers have zero incentive to care about me, and red states are overrepresented in congress in relation to their small popul…
That makes no sense. If california voters did anything other than voted for the candidate with the D next to their name, not everyone would assume their massive pile of votes will always go Democrat. California voters matter way more than any swing state, it's just so predictably one-sided that nobody bothers to waste time there.
The same thing would happen in a pure democracy. No candidates would spend time placating any large population centers that consistently vote one way. LA/SF/NYC issues would be irrelevant because everyone will just pick the D each time anyway so it will still come down to appealing to groups that might change their minds.
Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
#706What a joke
Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
#707Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can just add it to all the other hyper insane responses going around in the US right now, including: - Trump is going to get everyone killed in global nuclear war related to North Korea. You can't argue with that kind of hysteria. North Korea has been threatening to genocide the US and South Korea for 20 years in one form or another. Now they can actually do it, maybe someone should take the threat seriously fina…
>> Trump is going to get everyone killed in global nuclear war related to North Korea That's actually quite probable, because: - both countries are openly hostile towards each other - both have leaders that are mentally unstable and unpredictable.
You realize Kim Jong Un wants nukes so he doesnt get the same treatment as Saddam and Ghadaffi right?
Its just a self deterrent.
Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
#708From my perspective, the positive to this is that it will incentivize tech giants to accelerate the development of the web platform (WebRTC, WebGL, Web Assembly, Web Torrent and the like) as stuffing everything in HTTP and using encryption will protect them from the dirty blocking of services, and will allow them to focus their efforts on fighting throttling. For this reason, I hope Comcast and others will scare the…
Sorry but none of what you said really makes sense. 1) Websites work using FQDNs. ISPs can just throttle on that irrespective of whether the traffic is encrypted or not or what web technology is used. VPNs make that traffic somewhat hidden. But we could just see those banned outright unless you purchase a "business plan". 2) Apple, Microsoft, Google etc have already implemented the modern web. They have deviations in…
You may disagree but saying that it doesn't make sense is quite a stretch. I will nonetheless address your points :
1) Throttling is addressed by decentralizing the web with technologies such as Web Torrent. If every user is a seeder, there is not much the ISP can do. At the same time, the reason tech giants may not be happy with this approach can be understood, but then it is their choice and ISPs should not be blamed. Once this category of heavy traffic is out of the way, with regards to FQDNs if the traffic is lightweight, then throttling wouldn't make anysense. My guess also is that discriminating based on FQDNs provided lightweight packets would be blatantly anti-competitive. It would be similar to denying access based on race. Also, keep in mind that the only thing ISPs are saying is that companies driving more traffic (namely streaming companies) should pay more. So the chinese-like firewall you described is highly unlikely.
2) Too slowly, you can't make a product based on any of the disruptive features as of today. Support is barely existing and not mature enough. If they really wanted it, it would already be done because while the modern web is progressing slowly, these companies manage to iterate much more complex features on their other products. For example, while we've been struggling with the shitty Internet Explorer, Microsoft managed to literally roll out their very complex enterprise cloud business and scale it from zero to a multi-billion dollars segment. This and the .NET Core stuff. Similar things can be said of Apple and Google. Let's be real. In 2017, we should be at the stage where all the backbones are long done and they are rolling out their implementations of the bluetooth spec.
3) Prices may go up on Netflix, but they'll go down on comcasttube.com (if the service is not outright included in the ISP subscription price). Then they'll go down again on Netflix. Regarding the point on the richness of the web, this is not the way I think it will pan out for the reasons I explained. And part of my point was that, with this regard, tech giants getting real with the modern web has much more to do with it than NN, despite the rational currently being pushed by the valley.
Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
#709The voters elected a Republican government. That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine. Anybody who told you that lobbying the FCC was going to make a difference here was, whether they meant to or not, selling a bill of goods. As someone who respects but mostly profoundly disagrees with principled Republican la…
> The voters elected a Republican government. The Electors elected a Republican government. The voters elected a Democrat by 2,868,691 votes and there was Russian meddling on top of even that. Associating any popular mandate with that is shear nonsense.
I’ve seen no proof of Russian meddling that had any provable effect on the election. Only theoretical.
Second do you have ANY idea how many elections the US has “meddled” in? Let alone how many leaders we have literally overthrown?? Get some perspective. If you don’t like other nations pissing in our oatmeal I seriously suggest we stop pissing, shitting, and vomiting in theirs. Golden rule and all. Let the booing begin.
Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
#710Earlier quoted context omitted.
"That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine." That is not why this is shocking. This proceeding is shocking because the legal basis for this change is dependent on a false statements about the technology involved. It goes beyond just, "Republicans prefer deregulation," or, "Republicans favor market-based approa…
Do you have examples of outright falsehoods?
Among other things, the rules claim that DNS is an integral part of the service ISPs provide. The rules also claim that using a third party server requires unusual configuration on the part of consumers. That is false: an ISP could choose not to provide any DNS service and configure their customers' equipment to use a third party server.
(Amazingly enough, DNS is one of the central points in the FCC's argument that ISPs provide an information service.)