Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

311–320 of 329 posts

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

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they want to sell you 3Tb of bandwidth but you only use 2Gb, and they want you to pay extra for that 2Gb to not be slow - despite that you already paid for it to be a set speed. There's no growth left selling bandwidth. So they need to get growth by being anti-consumer.

It's almost like selling a 3TB SSD with only 500GB capacity but it dramatically throttles down once you go past 400GB so that it is impossible to fill it up to 3TB in any reasonable time frame. To hide the scam, they want to prevent your computer from running any software that would need the whole 3TB.

Like SMR NAS drives? There's also TLC SSDs with faster SLC cache

Not quite as bad as ISPs, but the storage industry isn't great either...

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

#312
post #188
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution for that is already in place – charge for bandwidth. If users pay $30 for 100 Mpbs or $60 for 500 Mpbs etc., and on top of it there are caps on total data consumed, where does the idea of further segmenting and prioritizing traffic even come from?

Most people aren't going to think about their internet usage in terms of total data used, because working out how much data a particular site or service will cost them is a lot of work and requires knowing technical details that most people don't pay attention to. That results in a market for internet products that offer unlimited access to particular sites, sometimes with restrictions like only standard-definition v…

It works for water and electricity. I think part of the issue is, it isn't billed that way so there's no incentive to improve the situation. It's a lot better in the mobile world where it's common to be billed by bandwidth

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

#313
post #34

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.

Why should the companies pay for it? There are agreements in place for bandwidth between the peering companies and last mile providers. They shouldn’t care how it’s consumed. The issue is not use it’s prioritization. That’s the danger. Netflix pays to prioritize their traffic over Discovery+ or your video streaming startup. Now when it’s busy and the pipe is fully consumed, Netflix is perfect and your company is drop…

The irony here is... Paid priorization is a solution to a problem ISPs created. If they didn't oversubscribe, there would be no market for guaranteeing transit on an oversubscribed network

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

#314
Net neutrality sucks for one reason - it makes paid fast lanes illegal.

Hear me out . . .

A connection to the internet should be basically a dumb pipe, not filtering, accelerating, or slowing down anything.

However . . .

An ISP should be able to have a side-pipe to a specific service that provides for unregulated access to something thru that pipe.

For instance you might watch Netflix all the time and want to pay a couple bucks for a side-pipe access to Netflix at a consistent throughput. Or maybe you work in finance and want access to Bloomberg, or Fidelity.

Or maybe you work remotely and would love to access your Microsoft email and SharePoint with higher upstream throughput.

Or maybe you’re a gamer and want a lower latency link to your game.

Why can’t you have that?

It is things like that which drive me crazy. The intent of the law is great but the implementation is lacking.

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

#315
post #134
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…

Besides the confusion regarding what net neutrality is that others have pointed out I would also like to point out that we had net neutrality for about 2 years from 2015 to 2017.

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

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I should’ve been more clear: I think there may be some behind the scenes coordination happening between these companies.

I suspect there isn't just because they don't really need to "coordinate" which would cause anti-trust issues, they can just "watch" and adjust based on what they see.

Fair point

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

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> I can get that most decent sized towns in my state.

In Illinois? What alternative universe are you from? Yes, really, I stand firmly behind the statement you are delusional at best!

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

#318

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. 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 multip…

If the ISP has over-subscribed their network that is not the ISP customer's problem, and that is not the problem of the (e.g.) streaming service.

The ISP either has to reduce their service speed or charge more.

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

#319
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?

> Do networks not fill up and get congested?

In theory they can, obviously. In practice if you pool 100's of users, the "regression towards the mean" kicks in with a vengeance and it almost never happens.

How do we know this? Well in other jurisdictions like Australia say (which is where I live), ISP's are required to guarantee a minimum peak period bandwidth. If their customers don't get it, they can complain to the government and _the government_ will prosecute the ISP.

The ISP's squealed like stuck pigs when this rule was implemented. What actually happened when it was introduced was nothing, apart from a few prosecutions when the ISP's lied. When I say "nothing" I don't mean absolutely nothing as every ISP had to label their wares with the real bandwidth and cap they would give you. For example, if you had a nominal 100Mbps internet link (which is the number they always quoted before the rule) an expensive ISP might say it was 95Mbps guaranteed. The cheap ISP, surprise surprise, might say they only guarantee 85Mbps on that same link. But no prices changed, and mostly no speeds changed. "Mostly" because a few liars had to stop lying and once the truth was visible the were driven out of the market.

Economic textbooks tell you a well informed market functions better than when there is an information imbalance between buyer and seller. All Australia did is correct that imbalance in the internet market, so it functioned a little better at matching buyer to seller.

But Australia went much further than that. There are no ISP monopolies in Australia, so there _always_ many alternatives for every retail purchaser. I won't going into how they achieved that, but I will tell you one consequence you might not expect. It means there is no need for net neutrality in Australia either. An ISP might advertise Netflix gets preferential treatment, perhaps Netflix traffic doesn't contribute to caps. That's all fair, but if an ISP penalised a customers Netflix viewing because Netflix didn't pay them a bribe - well churning to a new ISP is just a few clicks on a new ISP's web page. You don't have to ring up Comcast and plead your case - being able to change ISP's without contacting the old one is the law.

Australia solved it's internet delivery problems, including thorny problems like net neturality using the most basic of capitalist tools - putting systems and laws in place to ensure there is a highly functional market. It is remarkable how well capitalism works. It's amazing to many of us that the USA seems to prefer crony capitalism instead.

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

#320

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 would only be possible if they proxy your connections and you have accepted their certificate.

The entire point of SSL is to create an End-to-End encrypted connection between you and your target server. That includes anyone who can view and try to manipulate your traffic.

Post reply on HN