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

281–290 of 329 posts

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

#281

Post by imtringued »

throw0101a wrote: post #53
jwommack wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary beneficiaries of this are basically Netflix and Google, no? My understanding is most of these policies have always been targeted at the large streaming services that are putting the most burden on the networks and who often already have special interconnect agreements. The claims that these policies would be aimed at small businesses seem largely to have not been realistic. The whole situation with lying…

> My understanding is most of these policies have always been targeted at the large streaming services that are putting the most burden on the networks and who often already have special interconnect agreements. "large streaming services that are putting the most burden on the networks"? That is completely non-sensical. It is not streaming services that are creating a burden, it is the ISP's customers . The ISP's cus…

>ISPs are selling access to the Internet, streaming service are on the Internet, and so ISPs need provide it or stop advertising that they're providing Internet access.

How long until Comcast advertises its proprietary Comcast Network?

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

#282

Post by jaywalk »

monocasa wrote: post #268
jaywalk wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, show me the enforcement action that was taken against NBC in this case.

There wasn't one. Pretending to mishear the crowd is how you get out of it. That's literally my point.

Oh yeah, the FCC would have smacked them but since the reporter "pretended to mishear the crowd" their plans were foiled!

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? The reporter has literally zero control over what gets aired aside from the words coming out of her mouth. What she "pretended" to hear couldn't be less relevant.

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

#283

Post by imtringued »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #9

Can someone explain a technical issue I see with net neutrality? From a network engineering perspective, it seems sensible to me that CDN servers are located as close as possible to end users. So I assume that implies residing in whatever data centers the ISPs use at their edge. Is there some way to get the networking-efficiency benefits of those colo arrangements while still having net neutrality?

Colocation neutrality would imply that ISPs must accept everyone's colocation boxes for the same price.

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

#284

Post by imtringued »

brezelgoring wrote: post #225
RealStickman_ wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why every website should use HTTPS.

I don't know if that would change things, they know the whole SSL Handshake by virtue of being the ISP. I'm not sure anything can save you here.

That's a man in the middle attack. What's absurd is that the ISP you are paying is doing the attack.

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

#285

Post by monocasa »

jaywalk wrote: post #282
monocasa wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There wasn't one. Pretending to mishear the crowd is how you get out of it. That's literally my point.

Oh yeah, the FCC would have smacked them but since the reporter "pretended to mishear the crowd" their plans were foiled! Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? The reporter has literally zero control over what gets aired aside from the words coming out of her mouth. What she "pretended" to hear couldn't be less relevant.

The reporter knows that a long chant repeating the word fuck makes an interview unairable unless they have some semblance of cover. It's literally their job to produce raw footage that can be aired. 'Not hearing' the profanity has absolutely worked before for getting out of fines. The FCC is a giant bureaucracy and can be sort of hacked that way if there's regulatory 'case law' like there exists for this situation.

I agree it's not full proof, which is why I think the production staff if anything went out of their way to broadcast "fuck joe biden", contrary to the discourse on the matter.

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

#286

Post by lettergram »

jsjohnst wrote: post #252
lettergram wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US has some of the most expensive Internet access in the world. Lol what? I can get 5-10Gb/s fiber in my town for $120-$200/month. If I want 1Gb/s fiber it’s $55/month. If I want 100mb/s it’s $20/month. To your point it’s about regulatory capture. Not all states and localities have that issue, it’s almost entirely to do with several corrupt states that get targeted.

> Lol what? I can get 5-10Gb/s fiber in my town for $120-$200/month. Good for you, that puts you in the top 1% of US towns (maybe even 0.1%). Way to totally miss the forest for the trees.

I can get that most decent sized towns in my state. I think you’re vastly overestimating the problem. It has to do with corrupt politicians in several corrupt states.

See AT&T fiber options

https://www.att.com/internet/fiber/coverage-map/

Where I currently live and where I lived previously I’ve had multiple cheap options. The issue has to do with regulation

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

#287

Post by lettergram »

joshgachnang wrote: post #250
lettergram wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US has some of the most expensive Internet access in the world. Lol what? I can get 5-10Gb/s fiber in my town for $120-$200/month. If I want 1Gb/s fiber it’s $55/month. If I want 100mb/s it’s $20/month. To your point it’s about regulatory capture. Not all states and localities have that issue, it’s almost entirely to do with several corrupt states that get targeted.

Well I’m jealous of you then. You must know that is an extreme outlier in the US though. I’ve been lucky to get 50-100mbps for $60 in most cities I’ve lived in.

“Cities I’ve lived in” is the issue.

Cities tend to have a fairly high level of corruption AND it’s expensive to put in new wires / fiber. Most suburbs I’ve lived in (3-4 in the past 10 years) have had very good internet, cheap and like I said you can get some beastly fiber now.

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

#288

Post by ThunderSizzle »

zmgsabst wrote: post #204
bcgraham wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In what way is “emergency vehicles need special access” similar to “we need to charge Netflix more because ISPs oversold their networks while failing to upgrade”?

Toll roads charge more for larger vehicles. Vehicle registration may be more expensive for heavier vehicles or vehicles with more wheels. Meanwhile, toll roads may have just as much traffic issues and no guarantee of average velocity.

How is that not similar to ISPs throttling?

Not that I care much either way. I care more about localities and states encouraging or enforcing monopolies.

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

#289

Post by exabrial »

Net Neutrality is the greatest example of two sides that want the same outcome but can't get past their petty differences.

The only reason Republicans want this blocked is because they see the writing on the wall when the state gets totalitarian control over communication (oddly enough, playing out right now in Russia).

Democrats don't want to do deal with the Monopolistic behavior of ISPs, which is just an alternate version of totalitarian control.

The common solution to appease both sides: break up the fucking monopolies into small township sized chunks. Both sides would support it. Why this is so hard?

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

#290

Post by lettergram »

simonsarris wrote: post #258
lettergram wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US has some of the most expensive Internet access in the world. Lol what? I can get 5-10Gb/s fiber in my town for $120-$200/month. If I want 1Gb/s fiber it’s $55/month. If I want 100mb/s it’s $20/month. To your point it’s about regulatory capture. Not all states and localities have that issue, it’s almost entirely to do with several corrupt states that get targeted.

In New Hampshire (the state with the 3rd highest broadband penetration in the USA), about 1 hour from Boston, the cheapest possible internet I can get is $83/month from Comcast aka Xfinity I get 25/5 mbps

Midwest tends to have far fewer restrictions and most people live in suburbs.

This creates a situation with less corruption, less regulation and cheaper instillation costs

See AT&T map for instance:

https://www.att.com/internet/fiber/coverage-map/

Post reply on HN