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

191–200 of 329 posts

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

#191

Post by makomk »

imgabe wrote: post #92
bberenberg wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Doesn't Netflix already pay on a usage basis for their bandwidth? If you run a small website that gets 100 users a month, you pay very little for bandwidth. If you run a video streaming site with millions of users you pay a lot. And the users also pay for the bandwidth to download. Exactly how many more times do the ISPs need to get paid?

Not necessarily. Small websites have to pay for their bandwidth, but bigger companies like Netflix have been pushing ISPs into various schemes that give them that bandwidth for free, either through peering arrangements where ISPs take traffic to and from Netflix systems for free or through installing caching boxes in ISP facilities with the power, data and space paid for by the ISP.

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

#192

Post by disruptiveink »

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…

I wonder what percentage of the people who hold that opinion regarding Internet connection bandwidth hold the exact opposite opinion regarding road capacity and car usage. In those cases, I have a feeling they blame government entities for "not building enough roads" rather than blaming excessive usage of cars.

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

#193

Post by jeroenhd »

bcgraham wrote: post #187
lwkl wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The road-tax is neutral, it doesn't matter what goods you transport. Imagine charging the producers of the most transported goods to pay a fee in addition to the road-tax and otherwise blocking their goods being transported for the rest of the month. Net neutrality asks the internet to work how road taxes work. You pay for a certain bandwidth (a truck) and you can transport whatever goods you want with that. It doesn…

Note that roads are not neutral in the “net neutrality” sense, since emergency vehicles are prioritized. There’s a cogent argument against net neutrality on similar grounds: i.e., prioritizing traffic with prioritized purpose, especially in the face of congestion.

Networks aren't neutral either, even under net neutrality rules: you might lose your data uplink of the tower is at capacity and someone dials 911.

I'm a proponent of weakening net neutrality for when lives are at stake, but that's hardly ever the case on the internet. The problem is that most non-neutral treatment is the result of business interests rather than the greater good.

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

#194

Post by orangepurple »

smarx007 wrote: post #179
HelloNurse wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand this American mindset because my current bandwidth "problem" is being "forced" to setup a wired Ethernet network because WiFi isn't enough for cheap 5Gbps FTTH. More importantly, I'm used to ISPs wasting their lobbying on not paying for laying out fiber and their trust and goodwill budget on deceitful and greedy pricing, bad customer care and capricious geographic coverage: if nobody trusts…

> cheap 5Gbps FTTH I don't think there is a better way to rub salt into the wound.

5 gbps signal rate doesn't give you the full story about actual data transfer rates to important services, but its a start. Ran into this problem with AT&T Fiber (1 gbps) in Houston, Texas

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

#195

Post by throwaway894345 »

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…

Personally I would rather have a healthy competitive landscape than NN, but I’ll take the latter in a pinch.

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

#197

Post by throwaway894345 »

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…

Wow, I’m an American and I’ve never heard anyone say anything like this before. I wonder if it’s some ISP marketing this to their customers in their locale?

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

#198

Post by jmyeet »

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.

"States' rights" is now a loaded term because it is inextricably intertwined with the historical revisionism around the Civil War.

Basically, some white supremacists argue the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights. It wasn't. There's plenty of historical evidence and facts to debunk this. But even if true, the particular right in question was to own black people as property.

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

#199

Post by throwaway894345 »

kfmfjfjf wrote: post #178
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

You’re being downvoted, but these were the same criticisms I had several years ago. I have no love lost for ISPs if NN is passed again, but the pro-NN rhetoric at the time (like every other issue from 2016-2020) was hyperbolic and toxic. Unfortunately I think NN is too much of a partisan issue for much healthy debate. :/

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

#200

Post by naoqj »

jtbayly wrote: post #189
naoqj wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do networks not fill up and get congested?

That's the joke. People and corporations streaming HD video use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth which require more hardware capacity and peering deals. I think it's not crazy to ask that they pay a fair price for it. As someone who doesn't stream HD video I would like to have cheaper connections available if I don't want to pay for the bandwidth usage of other customers.
Post reply on HN