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

151–160 of 329 posts

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

#151

Post by cgriswald »

temp8964 wrote: post #111
walrus01 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

I don’t think that’s the proper requirement. They need to be not only conservative, but demonstrably supportive of states’ rights.

Regardless, the entire thing line of reasoning is moot. Even people who believe in states rights and are truly principled in their actions don’t think that states rights are a blank check or that no federal laws should passed. For example you can be in favor of federal laws protecting access to abortion because you believe in individual rights being paramount while also believing the federal government overreaches in other domains.

The poster is really just pointing out a perceived hypocrisy in politicians, which isn’t interesting; and painting everyone else who believes in the same concept with the same brush even if they haven’t demonstrated that hypocrisy.

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

#152

Post by RealStickman_ »

JJMcJ wrote: post #66

A few ISPs, like Sonic, maintain neutrality by their own policies. Then I read not only of throttling but of horrors like replacing ads on websites with different ones that pay the ISP.

That's why every website should use HTTPS.

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

#153

Post by 2000UltraDeluxe »

jollybean wrote: post #119
monkeywork wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 som…

Netflix pays for connectivity just like consumers do. They can pay for better QoS, which will result in better QoS for their customers if they want. Or their customers can, or both. "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..." That analogy doesn't work because Samsung, in that case, has nothing to do with th…

If my neighbor streams a movie from Netflix and I download a Linux ISO at the same time, there's no reason why the ISP should be allowed to charge extra from my neighbor or from Netflix, but not charge me or the guy hosting the Debian mirror.

Netflix, the Debian mirror, my neighbor and I are all paying for our connections. If we saturate the agreed-upon bandwidth then the ISP's could offer to sell more bandwidth. If we don't, then it's up to the ISP's to fulfill their part of the bargain.

Imagine if Office 365 started charging email senders for storage, not recipients people were using all the storage they pay for, but because Microsoft oversold their product and didn't want to invest in new storage servers.

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

#154

Post by manquer »

bberenberg wrote: post #7
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 don't support this, but I can try to steel man this position. Largely it comes with the idea that use = cost, and that infrastructure has limited capacity and is therefore zeroish sum. For example, a common idea is that we should tax trucks more than other cars because they cause a large amount of damage to our roads. Following that logic, the companies that encourage users to consume more bandwidth should be charg…

This incentivizes creation of artificial scarcity to squeeze more money.

The entire industry is built on free peering unless traffic is very asymmetric for the most part.

This is analogous to converting existing lanes to express lanes on highways, people are not going to pay if there is no congestion. The city makes more money removing a lane from regular use and also not investing further on road expansion / alternative routes.

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

#155

Post by amadvance »

d110af5ccf wrote: post #142
bombcar wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question comes into play at the edges - when your ISPs upstream connection is filled what happens? Can they selectively drop packets or do they have to drop them randomly? And can you pay to be in a “never drop my packets” group?

> Can they selectively drop packets Absolutely not. That practice should literally be illegal. > or do they have to drop them randomly? Yes. This is the only reasonable approach. > And can you pay to be in a “never drop my packets” group? No. That should be illegal to offer. If the ISP's network is incapable of meeting their customer's demands during peak hours and they oversubscribed themselves so badly that they're…

> > Can they selectively drop packets > Absolutely not. That practice should literally be illegal.

Why not ? From an engineering point of view, with a scarce resource, dropping only the biggest user (Netflix) looks reasonable.

Obviously, it should be illegal to ask money to do not have them dropped.

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

#156

Post by locallost »

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…

I'm not American, but I ran into this issue while discussing with some people living in the US (foreigners no less) and it's crazy how much they bought into the ISP propaganda. They're not stupid people, but they got convinced that they can't check their email because their neighbour is on Netflix and this is all Netflix's fault. When you hear the same argument repeated in the same way, it's always an indicator that the people saying it got brainwashed.

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

#157

Post by msh »

kodah wrote: post #134
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…

> The US has some of the most expensive Internet access in the world. In most places it's pretty crap too. Many places have no competition. Some providers are in clear breach of contract in not providing customers service as they promised to do. People say this, but we had net neutrality for years and it never improved the reach of broadband into rural areas. It mostly benefited cities. I would like to see a version…

I don't think that is the purpose of net neutrality.

Net neutrality is needed when there is not good competition. If there is only one or two ISP its important that they can't mess with the basic service.

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

#158

Post by lelanthran »

paxys wrote: post #29
bberenberg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question becomes who should be charged for bandwidth. The ISPs in this case are arguing they want to charge a small subset of above normal bandwidth consuming services rather than the ISP customers.

That's simply ISPs seeing a lucrative revenue stream and wanting in on it. Let's put company size and market cap out of the picture and think of the network architecture. I set up a server in Romania. Someone from USA makes a request to it and gets a response. Can their ISP (Comcast or AT&T or whoever else) now send me a bill at the end of the month?

> That's simply ISPs seeing a lucrative revenue stream and wanting in on it. Let's put company size and market cap out of the picture and think of the network architecture. I set up a server in Romania. Someone from USA makes a request to it and gets a response. Can their ISP (Comcast or AT&T or whoever else) now send me a bill at the end of the month?

I think it's the reverse: the idea is that your server in Romania keeps getting a low-priority until you send each ISP (Comcast, AT&T, etc) a cheque every month.

They don't need to send you a bill, they only need to wait for your money.

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

#159

Post by naoqj »

locallost wrote: post #156
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…

I'm not American, but I ran into this issue while discussing with some people living in the US (foreigners no less) and it's crazy how much they bought into the ISP propaganda. They're not stupid people, but they got convinced that they can't check their email because their neighbour is on Netflix and this is all Netflix's fault. When you hear the same argument repeated in the same way, it's always an indicator that…

"Brainwashing has caused people to believe in network congestion caused by high bandwidth usage."

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

#160

Post by mordae »

naoqj wrote: post #159
locallost wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not American, but I ran into this issue while discussing with some people living in the US (foreigners no less) and it's crazy how much they bought into the ISP propaganda. They're not stupid people, but they got convinced that they can't check their email because their neighbour is on Netflix and this is all Netflix's fault. When you hear the same argument repeated in the same way, it's always an indicator that…

"Brainwashing has caused people to believe in network congestion caused by high bandwidth usage."

Because of the bloated buffers along the way. It was empirically the truth.
Post reply on HN