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

ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 329 posts

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#101

Post by temp8964 »

walrus01 wrote: post #99
temp8964 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

No, states either have the right to set their own laws or they don't, you don't get to pick and choose some categories of laws on ideological grounds. State level abortion laws and school textbook laws are okay to override federal regulations but not telecom laws? Fact is there's a certain set of individuals right now spending a lot of time, money and effort to set new state laws based on conservative religious ideol…

No post body was provided.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#102

Post by edflsafoiewq »

walrus01 wrote: post #80
jmyeet wrote: post #46

The whole net neutrality saga just exposed the deep regulatory capture between ISPs and the FCC (the Republican Commissioners at least). Pai's argument for repealing net neutrality was that it wasn't a Federal government concern. That was originally what prompted California to institute these rules. But suddenly it wasn't a state issue either. Weird . The US has some of the most expensive Internet access in the world…

[flagged]

IME politics is based around clusters of concrete conclusions like "abortion should be legal". All arguments and abstract principles (like "states rights") are deployed and discarded opportunistically in the service of the fixed conclusions.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#103

Post by monkeywork »

jollybean wrote: post #97
wrycoder wrote: post #2

> California's net neutrality law is similar to the federal rules repealed under former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. California prohibits ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful traffic. It also prohibits requiring fees from websites or online services to deliver or prioritize their traffic to consumers, bans paid data cap exemptions (so-called "zero-rating"), and says that ISPs may not attempt to evade net neutrality prot…

"prohibits requiring fees from websites or online services to deliver or prioritize their traffic to consumers" This is not 'Net Neutrality'. If data providers like Netflix want 'special service' then they can pay for it. 'Net Neutrality' is more like Carriers cannot charge more for email, than for games, than for messaging, than for something else. Carriers should be able to charge whatever they want for whatever Qo…

>If Netflix wants more bandwidth with lower latency, fine, they can pay for that.

Why should Netflix pay for this? They aren't the one choosing to send traffic onto that network, the ISPs CLIENTS are. The ISP shouldn't have any ability to charge Netflix for actions their clients are taking - and they should have to treat all traffic that a client asks for equally.

Can you imagine an electric company trying to get some sort of fee from Samsung because they sell a lot of electronics that people use in their houses...

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#104

Post by bryanrasmussen »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #35
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the roads, we have a very rough estimate of the amount of the externalities of a given vehicle. On the Internet, we can have precise information on every bit of bandwidth consumed. Why not price the network equally for everyone?

In spirit I agree with you. The reality gets more complicated. The canonical example here is Netflix. Netflix's traffic is _mostly_ outbound and because it's video streaming, there's lots of it. If an ISP has a 10G circuit, then Netflix may end up taking up 50% of that circuit during prime after-work time. Because the circuit is limited in throughput, if Netflix takes up 50%, then remaining internet services need to…

>Now of course the ISP can add another circuit or upgrade their current circuit, but that costs them money.

generally when businesses have a cost they charge extra to cover that. Or theoretically they may be making enough money that they could have less profit for a year to improve service.

>the ISP is specifically choosing to drop Netflix packets at a higher rate than other packets.

yeah, and then they are saying we would like to be able to offer a service where we don't drop packets of particular customers if they pay us money. So the 'nice packets you got there, shame if anything were to happen to them' business model.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#105

Post by seanp2k2 »

Retric wrote: post #54
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're just angry at ISPs (I don't blame you, they're usually monopolies or oligopolies which engage in dirty behavior.) But given the state of the market, I don't know a _single_ ISP or customer that would confuse DIA for regular bandwidth. Buying DIA involves getting a quote from the ISP and going back-and-forth with an operator over how to connect. And the fine print for most ISPs explains what "unlimited…

Fine print isn’t a blanket solution for false advertising issues. Essentially advertising X while providing Y becomes a question of fraud.

ISPs pay enough to politicians that it’s not a problem they really have to solve. It works out through game theory. Solving it requires playing better and beating them.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#106

Post by walrus01 »

temp8964 wrote: post #101
walrus01 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, states either have the right to set their own laws or they don't, you don't get to pick and choose some categories of laws on ideological grounds. State level abortion laws and school textbook laws are okay to override federal regulations but not telecom laws? Fact is there's a certain set of individuals right now spending a lot of time, money and effort to set new state laws based on conservative religious ideol…

Quoted post unavailable.

Nearly every prominent conservative politician of the past ten years has come out publicly against "net neutrality".

Particularly when a state like California sets its own regulations.

And yet these are the very same people who will vigorously defend the rights of other states to pass laws that directly contradict Supreme Court decisions, or pre-existing Federal laws.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#107

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

threatofrain wrote: post #91
walrus01 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

IMO states' rights is a pretty nerdy issue if you take a step back and think about it. Very few people are such nerds.

That mostly because we've become accustomed to the federal government meddling in internal affairs more than it is supposed to. The union is supposed to be akin to the EU but without international sovereignty for states.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#108

Post by gameman144 »

walrus01 wrote: post #80
jmyeet wrote: post #46

The whole net neutrality saga just exposed the deep regulatory capture between ISPs and the FCC (the Republican Commissioners at least). Pai's argument for repealing net neutrality was that it wasn't a Federal government concern. That was originally what prompted California to institute these rules. But suddenly it wasn't a state issue either. Weird . The US has some of the most expensive Internet access in the world…

[flagged]

I think that while this is definitely true of opportunistic politicians who will take any advantage they can, I don't this is actually true of most people who actually believe in states' rights as a real principle (as opposed to a politically malleable one).

For instance, I have close family members who are strong free-market conservatives (to a pragmatic extent, not anarcho-capitalists or anything) who I consider to be good, decent, and intelligent people.

Across the board they support states' rights to make decisions about loads of things, even those things they personally don't want (e.g. drug legalization, public healthcare, climate change regulation).

Not saying that those tribally-minded "our team must win at all costs" folks don't exist, but those who actually believe in free-market conservative values for their own sake (as opposed to for the benefit of their "team") are, in my experience, just as reasonable as most other groups, and I think we can criticize hypocrisy without painting with such a wide brush.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#109

Post by HWR_14 »

wrycoder wrote: post #2

> California's net neutrality law is similar to the federal rules repealed under former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. California prohibits ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful traffic. It also prohibits requiring fees from websites or online services to deliver or prioritize their traffic to consumers, bans paid data cap exemptions (so-called "zero-rating"), and says that ISPs may not attempt to evade net neutrality prot…

I like T-Mobile's zero-rating solution. Specific classes of data (sub-480p video) would be zero rated for all servers who filled out paperwork, no source-based discrimination. That made sense.

Also, kinda obviously, government emergency services (911, weather alerts, etc) being zero-rated just make sense.

I don't want zero rating to let FB subsidize plans that allow free access to FB. I think we can find some uses that avoid dystopia.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#110

Post by charcircuit »

wmf wrote: post #81
charcircuit wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Customers are pulling that data and those customers, by definition, are already paying for the bandwidth Downloading bandwidth is free. The person who is uploading is the person who pays.

That's not how it works. It's more like each side pays for half. Some telcos, mostly in Europe, are trying to force through sender-pays settlement because it would make them money but that's fairly recent and I hope it doesn't go through.

>That's not how it works. It's more like each side pays for half.

Buying internet transit typically works by paying something based on max(ingress, egress) * bandwidth cost where bandwidth is measured at the 95th percentile of utilization for a month.

Post reply on HN