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

81–90 of 156 posts

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

#81

Post by wtallis »

notyourday wrote: post #60
dahart wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is not. If Netflix did not have PNIs to Comcast, Comcast internet would have been unusable for everyone. [Edit: Post more downvotes] Guess what happens to the Netflix traffic when the best route to Netflix is over Comcast transit?

> If Netflix did not have PNIs to Comcast, Comcast internet would have been unusable for everyone.

Only under the assumption that Comcast makes no attempt to do their job properly and uphold their contractual obligations by implementing reasonable QoS measures and upgrading their capacity. You can't point to Comcast's extortionist refusal to upgrade their links to the outside world and say that it's Netflix's fault; that was just their abusive tactic to force Netflix to deal with Comcast directly on Comcast's terms. Verizon did the same thing.

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

#82

Post by 24gttghh »

ensignavenger wrote: post #79
24gttghh wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I'd rather the FCC not be able to have leeway over it at this point, with the ability to alter their enforcement at whim every 4-8 years...

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

#83

Post by maxxxxx »

meri_dian wrote: post #77
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), ther…

It's always burdensome to have different laws in different states. Different sales tax in different states is a major PITA for example. I don't think this is different from other laws.

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

#84

Post by dmschulman »

djschnei wrote: post #16

Can someone explain to me how it's evil for them to charge more money for a "bigger pipe"? Their networks can only service so much traffic; not sure why supply and demand are seen as evil in this case.

It's evil because the cost of the actual service you're paying the ISP for (data transmission) has gone down and continues to get cheaper every year.

These companies are able to flaunt the laws of the marketplace by forcing consumers to pay more for a product despite the "physical good" becoming cheaper and cheaper every year for the ISP to produce.

https://broadbandnow.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/

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

#85

Post by wtallis »

notyourday wrote: post #36
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the last mile is (sometimes) truly bandwidth limited. But the trunk lines aren't. Now they just get to extort money from us or artificially throttle us . Worse, they'll likely (as they have everywhere else) extort money for websites they have no connection to (like Facebook or Twitter) just because they can. Like an entrepreneurial thug standing outside a club and extracting an extra fee to let folks in. Or p…

Exactly opposite. Last line is not bandwidth limited - FTTH exists. FIOS and even comcast do that. 100 people at 1Gbit/sec to the edge are 100Gbit/sec in the core to content providers. [Edit: Downvoting 2+2 being 4 is stupid] 1 Gbit/sec is easily deliverable at the edge, even if it costs 5 thousand dollars to get it connected. 1 Gbit/sec of non-oversubscribed IP transit is at least $500/mo. A building with 100 apartm…

You're replying to a comment about the current state of existing infrastructure by talking about the theoretical possibility of new infrastructure that could be deployed with today's technology, but largely isn't being deployed.

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

#86

Post by notyourday »

wtallis wrote: post #81
notyourday wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not. If Netflix did not have PNIs to Comcast, Comcast internet would have been unusable for everyone. [Edit: Post more downvotes] Guess what happens to the Netflix traffic when the best route to Netflix is over Comcast transit?

> If Netflix did not have PNIs to Comcast, Comcast internet would have been unusable for everyone. Only under the assumption that Comcast makes no attempt to do their job properly and uphold their contractual obligations by implementing reasonable QoS measures and upgrading their capacity. You can't point to Comcast's extortionist refusal to upgrade their links to the outside world and say that it's Netflix's fault;…

QoS does not stand for Quality of Service. It stands for Quantity of Service.

It also seems that you believe that QoS works by magic and not by dropping packets on the floor that meet certain criteria. Those criterias are gasp protocol and destination. It is no different from you putting a rate limits your API based on the token used to authenticate a client or a route used. But hey, yes, NN is telling me I should at best use RED to do QoS as everything else requires lookng at protocol and destination

> You can't point to Comcast's extortionist refusal to upgrade their links to the outside world and say that it's Netflix's fault; that was just their abusive tactic to force Netflix to deal with Comcast directly on Comcast's terms. Verizon did the same thing.

I live in a real world. In the real world if I am to take 10Mbit/sec that Comcast objectively delivers to the edge and multiply it by the number of edges that comcast has I arrive at the number of megabit/sec that does not exist in all interconnect points combined. Comcast has no way of upgrading it to that point. It is simply not possible. There's not a single network that can provide this kind of capacity even at 10Mbit/sec, not to mention at 50Mbit/sec or 150Mbit/sec or Gigabit/sec.

The only way to deal with this is PNIs between those that originate massive amounts of traffic and the networks that consume massive amounts of traffic. Your JoeSchmoe.com does not get to have a PNI until it can afford to pay for it because it has enough traffic.

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

#87

Post by rjdagost »

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.

Democrats are not traditionally states' rights proponents. And yet they will wrap themselves in the banner of states' rights when it suits their agenda (gay marriage, drug laws, etc.). It is run of the mill political expediency- no more, no less.

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

#88

Post by notyourday »

wtallis wrote: post #85
notyourday wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly opposite. Last line is not bandwidth limited - FTTH exists. FIOS and even comcast do that. 100 people at 1Gbit/sec to the edge are 100Gbit/sec in the core to content providers. [Edit: Downvoting 2+2 being 4 is stupid] 1 Gbit/sec is easily deliverable at the edge, even if it costs 5 thousand dollars to get it connected. 1 Gbit/sec of non-oversubscribed IP transit is at least $500/mo. A building with 100 apartm…

You're replying to a comment about the current state of existing infrastructure by talking about the theoretical possibility of new infrastructure that could be deployed with today's technology, but largely isn't being deployed.

That's something that you should bring up with your local government. It is your local government that is blocking roll outs of FTTH.

Even at 10Mbit/sec congestion will be at the core. Comcast currently claims to have 22.3 million internet customers. At 10 Mbit/sec it means 223.3 MILLION megabit per second that needed to be handed off to transit. It is not possible.

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

#89

Post by wtallis »

wanderingbort wrote: post #71
dahart wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 activ…

> 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.

We need laws or regulations to address the fact that ISPs are actually forcing content providers to deploy in-network CDN nodes with the ISPs through extortive refusal to upgrade the links between the residential ISPs and the ISPs serving Netflix et al. Some deployment of local CDN nodes makes sense on its own and benefits both parties, but it's not like video streaming is actually latency-sensitive or anything.

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

#90

Post by fzeroracer »

24gttghh wrote: post #73
davexunit wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Whataboutism is fun.
Post reply on HN