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

111–120 of 156 posts

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

#111

Post by wtallis »

notyourday wrote: post #106
wtallis wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> QoS does not stand for Quality of Service. It stands for Quantity of Service. Fuck you. You aren't even trying to have a reasonable conversation, are you? You're welcome to attempt to argue that there's an unavoidable equivalence between QoS as everybody defines it and the other concept you're trying to equate it to, but you have to actually make that argument, not just declare the definition of QoS to have changed…

> You're welcome to attempt to argue that there's an unavoidable equivalence between QoS as everybody defines it and the other concept you're trying to equate it to, but you have to actually make that argument, not just declare the definition of QoS to have changed because you don't like what it means. QoS still stands for Quality of Service. QoS being a quantity of service is a very well known term, pioneered and po…

> QoS being a quantity of service is a very well known term, pioneered and popularized by Dave Rand/Avi Freedman to describe that QOS establishes which packets are to be dropped on the floor first.

So you're still trying to re-define the literal text of what the "QoS" initialism expands to, and now you're also trying to narrow the scope of QoS as defined by everybody else.

There's more to QoS than just deciding which packet to drop. You also have to decide when to drop a packet. This second aspect is what makes QoS not a zero-sum game when faced with real-world traffic.

> QOS might work OK on networks with microspikes but it completely breaks on networks that are > 20% oversubscribed.

What exactly do you mean by "microspikes"?

20% oversubscription is laughably small compared to the disparity between my 1GbE LAN and my 50Mbps WAN connection. QoS makes a world of difference for the users on my LAN. Oversubscription just means you'll actually get the opportunity to notice the difference between having QoS and having a dumb FIFO. Nobody's actually asking for a circuit-switched Internet, or anything that would require a circuit-switched Internet.

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

#112

Post by maxxxxx »

meri_dian wrote: post #94
maxxxxx wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is why criticism of Republicans for this on the basis of the law not meshing with one of their supposed foundational ideologies is stupid. We should not be ridiculing people for not being ideologues. We live in a time when we need people to not be ideologues.

They are endlessly repeating their ideology for everything else. I would have had more respect for them if they had said that it's up to the states whether they want net neutrality or not. The same way they are advocating with health care, environmental rules and everything else.

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

#113

Post by haZard_OS »

meri_dian wrote: post #94
maxxxxx wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is why criticism of Republicans for this on the basis of the law not meshing with one of their supposed foundational ideologies is stupid. We should not be ridiculing people for not being ideologues. We live in a time when we need people to not be ideologues.

There is, I think most will agree, a difference between being an ideologue and being consistent.

Inconsistency in the application of one's proclaimed first principles should be criticized unless and until the inconsistency is justified with reason and evidence.

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

#114

Post by wanderingbort »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #102
wanderingbort wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

You're just listing things that add small linear costs that are rounding errors in a ballpark estimate like this, and fixed costs that don't add anything because they're the same for two ports as twenty. Do the actual math. Show me something with an aggregate cost of more than, say, $1/month/customer. Especially using realistic numbers rather than the "10Gbps port for a hundred 100Mbps customers" ones I gave to make…

> Do the actual math.

You first. You made a claim which was woefully inaccurate, I called you out in an admittedly childish way and now the burden of proving you wrong is on me?

Here is my ballpark, Both sides will want redundant fiber connections between two edge routers at 10gbps. SFP+ 10g from cisco is ~60 bucks. We need at least 4 (2 on each side), plus a reserve of 4 for faster recovery from failure. In addition, lets assume that we amortize some cost of the _edge router_ for this service. A refurb 16 port SFP+ module for 10g fiber is around $6000 and we will need 2 of them in 2 separate chassis on EACH SIDE and lease Colo space for it but we will amortize it. So, $6k + $1k for the chassis + $800 for the supervisor card. to lease space for this: $1000k/month per chassis(5u at 200/u in a major market carrier hotel) / 16. We need cabling too but lets assume thats commodity.

up front costs so far:

$60 (sfp modules) * 8 = 480

$7800 edge router * 4 / 16 = 1950

so $2430 for equipement (amortized)

1k/month/chasis = 4k/month / 16 = 250/month recurring

100 customers over 2 years = 1950 + 6000 / 100 / 24 = $3.31/month/customer before we even talk about monitoring/maintenance/legal/etc

I have not even begun to dig into the practical costs, and I'm at 3x your target. Your move.

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

#115

Post by haZard_OS »

meri_dian wrote: post #76
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.

Take a deep breath, you're rationalizing away hypocrisy.

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

#116

Post by haZard_OS »

rhino369 wrote: post #108
sametmax wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But throttling is really hard to prove. They can always downsize some hardware to "prioritize" and "retarget their budget", but effectively they just throttle. Basically they can do whatever they want with the proper wording now.

Sabotaging their network just to throttle just doesn't make sense. Nobody is going to pay for a white-list only internet. That is fear mongering by the pro-NN side.

You call it "sabotaging", I call it "enhancing monetization powers". Either way, it's sabotaging the public's access.

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

#118

Post by foobard »

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.

"States' rights" is a racist dog whistle. Nothing more.

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

#119

Post by throwanem »

jessaustin wrote: post #29
ictoan wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This! "They just say what they need to say, in the moment, to get what they want" And Trump is the magnification of the GOP. We need to hold them accountable!!!

OMG you're serious. Partisans are so cute.

I agree with the sentiment that there's nothing to choose between the parties when it comes to favoring intellectual and moral consistency in governance over whatever will keep a given party's officials, appointees, and elected representatives in their jobs. But cheap, contemptuous condescension adds nothing to the conversation. The temptation is strong at times, I know. But please try not to succumb to it.

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

#120

Post by wtallis »

meddlepal wrote: post #93

It'll just be rewritten in five or ten years or whenever the other team is in power. I'm not sure why anyone gets worked up about this stuff anymore.

Because it's not a pendulum.

Net neutrality was how the internet worked de facto from its inception through approximately the end of the dial-up days. It wasn't necessary to impose net neutrality de jure until home broadband was widespread and capable of eating into traditional cable TV revenue. It wasn't necessary to regulate net neutrality for DSL carriers back when local loop unbundling applied to them. But between 2000 and 2010, the net neutrality situation got worse than it ever had been, the regulatory efforts from 2010 to 2015 were half-assed at best, and the 2015 regulations weren't in place long enough to even establish enough judicial precedent to tell whether they could work long-term.

Partisan control of Congress definitely swings back and forth semi-regularly, but that's not what the history of net neutrality looks like.

Post reply on HN