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

FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 169 posts

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#61

Post by mncharity »

jasonlfunk wrote: post #5

It’s been over two years since Net Neutrality was repealed. I remember at the time there was a lot of talk about how the internet was going to be ruined by throttling, paid “fast lanes”, etc. Have any of these things happened? Or did that turn out to mostly be fear-mongering?

> It’s been over two years since Net Neutrality was repealed. [...] Have any of these things happened? Or did that turn out to mostly be fear-mongering?

The game is older than that, and iterated.

The telcos-vs-internet fight over common carriage, network neutrality, and then Net Neutrality, has been going on since the 1990's. Telcos don't want to be in a commodity business of dumb pipes - far more profitable to coerce a piece of everyone's action. Educating congress about the architectural importance of common carriage burned a lot of IETF leadership time during the transition to Internet.

One ongoing characteristic of this fight has been telcos moderating their behavior for fear of backlash strengthening the neutrality position. Another recurrent pattern has been telco overreach, followed by regretting it. Gouge too hard now, and reestablishing neutrality regulation in some next administration becomes a no brainer. Over the decades, neutrality regulation has lost more than won, but has remained an immanent threat. Slowing the re-imagining of the internet as a centralized broadcast medium.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#62

Post by SteveNuts »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #27

Would introducing competition for internet access at the residential level help prevent the type of consumer abuse that was predicted to happen? If Comcast is my only choice for broadband and there is no net neutrality, they can set whatever terms they want. If I have a choice between Comcast, three LEO internet providers, and four fixed wireless providers, Comcast loses its leverage.

I wish my city, county, or state owned the actual coax cable leading to my house and ISPs had to bid against each other to service my internet.

The fact that Comcast owns that cable means there's no real competition.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#63

Post by gnicholas »

crooked-v wrote: post #45
afiori wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I never properly understood is whether these caps appear anywhere on your contracts, if they don't then net neutrality should[1] not be necessary and if they do then it should not apply. [0] I guess I am wrong in believing this should is respected

Contracts with ISPs are whatever the ISP wants them to be at any time, because the US court system allows one-sided non-negotiable contracts that include "we can change this contract at any time" clauses. Also, if you want to sue over the changes in the contract... you can't, because the US court system allows those one-sided non-negotiable contracts to include "you can never sue us for anything and instead are requi…

The fundamental problem here isn't how contracts work in the US — it's that in many places there is effectively zero competition for wired broadband services. If there were meaningful competition, then consumers would have somewhere to turn. It doesn't matter what the contract says if you don't have any meaningful alternatives for service.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#64

Post by filoleg »

Alupis wrote: post #57
FireBeyond wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> could wage a good argument with evidence that I didn't use the data they claim Let us know how that works out for you. My guess? "We can waive this month as a courtesy, but we can't use your router as evidence".

> We can waive this month as a courtesy That would be the goal.

The goal is to not have it happen again. Which is contrary to the wording given, since it implies that Comcast willing to waive the overage charges for the month was a "one-time thing" kind of deal.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#65

Post by pmoriarty »

FYI:

The deadline for comments is March 30, and the deadline for reply comments is April 29, (though it's not clear what the difference between comments and reply comments is).

The FCC document (in all its legalistic glory) can be seen here: [1]

And you can comment here: [2]

[1] - https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-168A1.pdf

[2] - https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#66

Post by anonsivalley652 »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #52
anonsivalley652 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NN didn't allow slowing particular apps or particular users relative to others unless there was a major problem. The wireless carriers wanted to do these things, but it's unclear whether they implemented targeting specific individuals/apps or not after the repeal (I doubt they would announce something so unpopular), or just said "apps X, Y, Z don't count against data plan R." I think there's enough technical people w…

>NN didn't allow slowing particular apps or particular users relative to others unless there was a major problem. I agree. But that wasn't my take on the claim above, so I asked for the source that this was happening selectively to specific sites, apps, or users. I guess I'll keep waiting.

Yes, I also agree. And, I'm also waiting for Godot. Btw, is this the 43 bus line or are we huddling in this bus shelter for what seems like no reason? I gotta get to East Cleveland.

;@)

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#67

Post by happytoexplain »

duckMuppet wrote: post #11
Alupis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for net neutrality, but 2 of the 3 things you listed were never going to be "protected" by net neutrality laws. Which highlights the problem with what Net Neutrality morphed into - it became something that meant everything and anything - not just "dumb pipes" like it originated as. Ask 3 different people what Net Neutrality means and you'll get 3 different answers. How do you legislate that and make everyone…

Exactly. This highlights the foolishness of "net neutrality", which is really just code for "my team should regulate the internet".

It always seemed somewhat opposite to me - that opposition to net neutrality consists of a non-negligible percent of people acting only against something perceived to be liberal.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#68

Post by anonsivalley652 »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #59
anonsivalley652 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly correct, essentially all new plans have transfer caps. I still have a vintage Verizon data plan that's bonafide unlimited. Data overage is gotcha-capitalism robbery.

Are you talking about a mobile phone data plan, or a hardwired ISP-ish data plan? I'm about 99% sure that the specific classification this fight was over only applied to the latter, not the former -- there was never any "neutrality" in this sense for mobile data.

Both, to varying degrees. And of course carriers are going to tailor their cell gear to their benefit in ways unknowable to customers without enterprising investigators conducting some seriously-dedicated SDR packet capturing and N carrier x M handsets x P locations x Q time-of-day testing.

0. Even assuming lossless/infinite backhaul capacity, it gets messy when guessing about what's deployed in terms of packet prioritization of tower -> handset.

1. Once deployed and maintained, the marginal cost of data is much closer to zero than what customers are being overcharged. Even if it's going from a cell tower to cheap dark fiber or trenched in, it's still nearly the same amortized cost. Also, there is plenty of spectrum channel capacity.. the "bottleneck" is the backend of the towers or their backend upstream in the region.

2. Xfinity (optical, fixed-premises "cable") has a 1 TB limit for certain US states but not others, where they have unlimited data allowances. So it's not about infrastructure or data transit costs, it's about making money from relatively richer people.

It would be a good requirement for internet-providing carriers to be required to publish their effective channel capacity oversubscription ratio (for upload & download) for each internet-connecting plan that is offered in each ZIP code.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#69

Post by IggleSniggle »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #53
epanchin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fast lanes benefit established players at the expense of start ups. Consequently, if there has been detrimental effects, I doubt you would notice them. When you think to yourself, why do I put up with youtube, why isn't there an alternative... that's the 'thing happening'.

Where are these fast lanes? I believe you of course, but how do I know these exist like you say?

Netflix is probably the most relatable case study on what fast lanes look like, because it is Netflix that pays whatever rate the teleco thinks it can insist on in order to install their CDN in your ISPs hub, that in many cases must compete with the exact same content the telco is now serving.

(Side note: one more good reason for Netflix to be in the content creation game)

Netflix gets to pay whatever rate to get priority infrastructure at the telco, you get to pay more to Netflix, and you blame Netflix (not the telco) if the content delivery is botched / not as good as what your "cable subscription over the Internet" delivery is.

That doesn't line up perfectly with the narrative about fast lanes that we were sold, but it does show some of the power being wielded by the telco today as more than just a dumb pipe, and how they leverage their position against competitors.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#70

Post by Retric »

epanchin wrote: post #32
jasonlfunk wrote: post #5

It’s been over two years since Net Neutrality was repealed. I remember at the time there was a lot of talk about how the internet was going to be ruined by throttling, paid “fast lanes”, etc. Have any of these things happened? Or did that turn out to mostly be fear-mongering?

Fast lanes benefit established players at the expense of start ups. Consequently, if there has been detrimental effects, I doubt you would notice them. When you think to yourself, why do I put up with youtube, why isn't there an alternative... that's the 'thing happening'.

It’s not just fast lanes as many networks care about the data their sending, but these things take a while to gain traction so it’s not yet that obvious.

For example Verizon has the lesser known FreeBee: For pay-per-click campaigns, the FreeBee Data icon (a “bee”) appears next to sponsored content to let Verizon Wireless subscribers know that, when they click on that content, they will not incur data charges. With FreeBee Data 360, businesses can sponsor some or all of their app or website.

That’s just one example, but it does demonstrate net neutrality is dead in the US.

Post reply on HN