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

GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 156 posts

Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

#71

Post by wanderingbort »

dahart wrote: post #51
wanderingbort wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is objectively false. Degrading the "slow" lanes is only one way to produce a fast lane. Direct peering arrangements and co-location of services are two ways to create "fast" lanes without having to degrade anything. They are also not free, so it makes sense that business-to-business deals would be made to establish them (aka paid fast lanes). The effective bandwidth of the internet looks like an hour glass. As…

You've missed the point. The very existence of fast lanes means that whatever's left is a degradation. This has been the point NN proponents have been making all along. Proposing to ban slow lanes but allow fast lanes effectively does nothing for NN proponents. It doesn't have to be "actively" slowing down traffic to be degraded. If ISPs can go faster, and they choose not to unless you pay more, that is a form of deg…

> If ISPs can go faster, and they choose not to unless you pay more, that is a form of degradation.

You've missed my point. There are some ways an ISP can go faster that are not neutral AND not malicious/extortive. If google puts a GGC on your ISPs network, youtube now has an advantage over hulu. There is no equivalent internal-deployment that can give a truly neutral increase in capacity.

To conflate this with active degradation (throttling or blocking) means that you would have an ISP be unable to host any service until they can guarantee _all services_ equivalent access (presumably at the ISPs expense otherwise they would price out everyone but the big players).

Before you immediately chose "neutral hosting" realize that it is untenable for every random small website to be able to legally demand any ISPs host their services for free in order to guarantee a level playing field with Google and Netflix. The only tenable solution is to make it illegal to collocate services which will be a far worse hit to the experience you have on the web than any throttling or blocking has ever been.

This is not as simple as you would like it to be.

> If ISPs can go faster, and they choose not to unless you pay more, that is a form of degradation

This is assuming intent and over-simplifying. Is a small regional ISP without the capital or credit necessary to expand now anti-NN by default? Are they extorting their customers by default? Not all ISPs are Comcast and Verizon. If you cannot escape your circumstance and see the bigger picture of how and what the internet is and who "ISPs" are then you are just being selfish.

Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

#72

Post by Retric »

24gttghh wrote: post #33

Here [0] is the actual text (i.e. hosted directly by congress.gov) which arstechnica was so thoughtful to not link to. >“(2) may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. Seems like what NN proponents want, isn't it? >“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing in…

> Seems like ...

No the exceptions are huge. Netflix is throttled based on network they slow everything on that network down so this explicitly allows one of the known examples of throttling that actually occurred.

Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

#73

Post by 24gttghh »

davexunit wrote: post #64
Y_Y wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you aren't implying that the Democratic party is any different.

They most certainly are different.

Sure, they are evil in different ways, with money at the root of both sides. We've all seen how they (Dems) handled the primaries last year. If what they did doesn't scream fraud to you, what will?

Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

#75

Post by wtallis »

24gttghh wrote: post #33

Here [0] is the actual text (i.e. hosted directly by congress.gov) which arstechnica was so thoughtful to not link to. >“(2) may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. Seems like what NN proponents want, isn't it? >“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing in…

> "in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service"

"availability" here does not cover performance. Specialized services will likely subtract from the performance of communication with the rest of the internet, but this clause only cares if the impact would be a more thorough loss of connectivity. As long as the ISP continues to offer a neutral tier of service at some level of performance and price, they can devote the bulk of their bandwidth to providing non-neutral service.

Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

#76

Post by meri_dian »

1024core wrote: post #62

> and prohibit state governments from enacting their own net neutrality laws. So much for "States' rights", huh? Fucking hypocrites. A man is known by the company he keeps, as the old adage goes. Anyone who supports Republicans in any shape and form is also a fucking hypocrite and a liar.

Take a deep breath, you're being extreme.

Just because the Republican party is traditionally associated with states' rights doesn't mean they should always have to give precedence to states.

Allowing states to enact their own regulations in this case would be incredibly burdensome to internet businesses, there's a good reason for net neutrality laws to be uniform across the whole country.

Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

#77

Post by meri_dian »

maxxxxx wrote: post #13

It's funny how they always vehemently advocate for states rights unless these states rights get in the way of their agenda.

Just because the Republican party is traditionally associated with states' rights doesn't mean they should always have to give precedence to states.

The sway of ideologies should be balanced with a willingness to judge issues on their own merit.

Allowing states to enact their own regulations in this case would be incredibly burdensome to internet businesses looking to operate in multiple states (so all of them), there's a good reason for net neutrality laws to be uniform across the whole country.

Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

#78

Post by wanderingbort »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #69
wanderingbort wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is objectively false. Degrading the "slow" lanes is only one way to produce a fast lane. Direct peering arrangements and co-location of services are two ways to create "fast" lanes without having to degrade anything. They are also not free, so it makes sense that business-to-business deals would be made to establish them (aka paid fast lanes). The effective bandwidth of the internet looks like an hour glass. As…

> Direct peering increases the capacity of the ISP's "edge" but only for the services available on the peer. Co-location puts those services on the internal side of the bottleneck, again increasing effective capacity, but only for the services that are co-located in the ISPs datacenters. Almost all major providers (google, akamai, netflix, facebook) offer some form of co-locatable server however, those cost money to…

you are over-simplifying. If we want to be pedantic,

and assume that the two edge routers are just switches

and we would use a consumer level 10gbps port

and that the switchers are already in the same rack in the same facility

and that that rack in that facility has direct access to our distribution PoP

and that there are no firewall rules that need to be in place on that port (they can be in the DMZ sure)

and that we don't need to monitor that connection

and that we don't need that connection to be redundant at all

and that we aren't going to use a routing protocol like BGP on that port (we will just hard code routes)

and that we don't want any guarantee that you and I will operate that link at any SLA

and that we don't want to guarantee that both parties will give notice in a timely manner before termination

and... and... and...

So, which textbook are you copying from? You put out something that is technically true without considering any of the practical realities.

(edited for readability)

Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

#79

Post by ensignavenger »

24gttghh wrote: post #67
ensignavenger wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to ask if anyone had actually read the proposed bill. It isn't very long, and I didn't see anything about "paid" prioritization, though that might be considered a "specialized" service. From what I can tell, this bill puts give a lot of power to the FCC to determine what types of specialized services would "offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access…

And neither am I, but I could see how the paid prioritization may be considered a "specialized" service. I am leaning towards reading it as double-speak.

But even if it does end up being a paid service, the FCC still, potentially, has the power to determine that it either A) "offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service", or B) has "been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section"

So, the devil is in the details, and the FCC seems to have the power to write those details, if I understand correctly. Even if the present FCC writes sub standard details, a future FCC could re-write them.

Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

#80

Post by 24gttghh »

Retric wrote: post #72
24gttghh wrote: post #33

Here [0] is the actual text (i.e. hosted directly by congress.gov) which arstechnica was so thoughtful to not link to. >“(2) may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. Seems like what NN proponents want, isn't it? >“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing in…

> Seems like ... No the exceptions are huge. Netflix is throttled based on network they slow everything on that network down so this explicitly allows one of the known examples of throttling that actually occurred.

I figured as much but since no one was talking about the actual text of the bill I thought this was a good starting point :)
Post reply on HN