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

291–300 of 329 posts

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

#291

Post by orangepurple »

wil421 wrote: post #260
orangepurple wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’ve had both AT&T and Comcast 1gbps and never had any noticeable data transfer issues. A lot of things like Usenet downloads were close to saturating the wire speed, close to 100MB per second. Comcast’s upload speed is abysmal (coaxial), AT&T was symmetrical (FTTH). How could I test this?

speed.cloudflare.com

fast.com

In my experience these always tell the truth

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

#292

Post by otachack »

exabrial wrote: post #289

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…

Because they're at each other's throats and not willing to cross the aisle to avoid political blowback from their own side.

The state of this country is a shame and we obviously need support for more parties with diversified political viewpoints.

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

#293

Post by throw0101a »

imtringued wrote: post #281
throw0101a wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> How long until Comcast advertises its proprietary Comcast Network?

AOL / CompuServe here we come (again). Walled gardens for everyone.

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

#294

Post by kodah »

msh wrote: post #157
kodah wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I guess the irony that I've observed here is how little HNers know about the rest of the world. Usually rural areas are in this exact scenario.

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

#295

Post by zmgsabst »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #288
zmgsabst wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s not similar to ISP throttling because you’re paying for the scale but a flat fee for any use of that same scale.

The toll road doesn’t forbid trucks or cars painted red just because traffic on the toll road is heavy. Paying for the size of your vehicle isn’t like throttling; it’s like paying different amounts for different bandwidths.

It’d only be similar to throttling if the toll roads charged different amounts based on the contents of the vehicles.

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

#296

Post by Hikikomori »

throw0101a wrote: post #168
Hikikomori wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's simply no way for any ISP to allow all customers to use their full bandwidth, that just doesn't work, both technically and with the prices consumers pay. When building (and replacing parts to add capacity) the network ISPs look at current usage, average usage of each customer, account for future growth, etc, results in some cost that ends up as part of what customers has to pay. If traffic increases much more…

> There's simply no way for any ISP to allow all customers to use their full bandwidth, that just doesn't work, both technically and with the prices consumers pay. I know how over-subscription works. But tough shit. As an ISP customer I'm paying for $x/month for x bps. I've cut a cheque now provide me with what you advertised. > If the new investment was paid in part by Netflix and others like them, as they drive mos…

Do you think its feasible to build a network that is not oversubscribed? Do you think the current cost of Internet subscriptions could pay for a network that is not oversubscribed?

Netflix and others for sure do not pay a lot for their Internet connection, they do not really have one in this context. Most of the traffic comes from their CDN nodes, these are place directly inside ISPs own network (a server with multiple 10Gbit connections), they do not pay the ISPs a lot for this as its also a large benefit for the ISP since otherwise this traffic would come over peering instead and would have to travel further as CDN nodes can be geographically distributed.

The TCO of the ISPs network investments and operation is paid by their end customers, the current low cost is only possible if their network is oversubscribed.

All these things are simply solved by having a competitive market, countries that have that pay much less in Internet subscription costs. Competition is enabled by municipal networks (the ones here do not offer their own Internet service, they put down fiber when other stuff needs to be put in the ground, then let ISPs connect to their network), or by forcing ISPs to share last mile connections to other ISPs.

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

#297

Post by matt321 »

Why shouldn't a company or person be discriminated against based on content type? content type is not a protected category. Ultimately, net neutrality is good for the rich since it lower their cost so it will all be supported by the gov. If you people didn't already know, the the rich are the ones who make the calls in the USA. I don't want to bring them down though, I want to elevate my self to their level.

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

#298

Post by jollybean »

d110af5ccf wrote: post #145
jollybean wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Netflix pays for connectivity just like consumers do. Yes, Netfix pays their ISP. They should never need to pay the customer's ISP. Peering should be cost neutral. ISPs shouldn't be allowed to double dip.

NNetflix can pay their customers ISP if they want some kind of improved QoS on behalf of their customers.

But they shouldn't have to pay 'just because'.

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

#299

Post by jollybean »

wtallis wrote: post #129
jollybean wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> They can pay for better QoS, which will result in better QoS for their customers if they want. Please, stop using QoS as a synonym for explicit prioritization. QoS strategies have advanced greatly since the 1990s, and the goal of providing better quality of service should not be used to defend obsolete non-neutral techniques. Net neutrality and QoS are not conflicting goals, and enforcing net neutrality is an excel…

I used to work in networking to help define such QoS terms, and clearly you didn't read what I wrote because I'm using QoS as an example of how to properly do Net Neutrality.

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

#300

Post by jollybean »

2000UltraDeluxe wrote: post #153
jollybean wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're confusing things a bit.

Item 1) 'nor reason to charge extra for Netflix'.

Of course there is a reason: QoS. You neighbour might want a low-latency, high bandwidth service that doesn't worry about packet loss. You might want a service which is better for downloads: no worries about latency, medium speed, no packet loss.

Different prices for different services.

Also - Netflix may choose to subsidize their service i.e. you don't even need an ISP bill with Netflix - it comes with the package.

2) Netflix, Debian, you and your neighbour are all paying different kinds of bills for different kinds of things. If Netflix's deal is that they get massive fast service until a certain threshold, after which their service is degraded ... when then users will see that degradation at their end.

What cannot happen is ISPs arbitrarily charging Netflix more for no reason, or charging for different kinds of content.

Everyone pays for a 'pipe' with different characteristics, ideally without price discrimination (i.e. if you want the same pipe as Netflix then you pay the same prices ass them), and that's that.

Post reply on HN