Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 302 posts

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#241

Post by deltarholamda »

somenameforme wrote: post #239
mattnewton wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? How would regulation that “you must not throttle” lead to regulation for “you just throttle”? That makes no sense.

The most typical way this is done is through selective enforcement. You create rules that most of anybody can be argued to be breaking, but only enforce it for individuals or organizations that you have an issue with. With net neutrality it's pretty easy to see how this would happen. The previous net neutrality rules, under Tom Wheeler, included a carveout for nearly all rules under anything that could be justified a…

I am always surprised when somebody finds this a novel take. This sort of corruption is older than Boss Tweed. But I guess every generation has to relearn the same lessons.

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#242

Post by op00to »

cddotdotslash wrote: post #4

One of the biggest arguments I remember being made back when net neutrality was a hot topic was that ISPs would bundle and sell specific websites as tiered plans. Infographics like this one [1] were shared widely. Has this happened in the US? I’ve definitely seen ISPs start to apply data caps and throttling, but haven’t seen the aforementioned packaging (at least with the major ISPs). I ask because this is one of the…

It's more insidious than simply bundling together access to certain websites. The main way that ISPs extract $$ out of content providers is by charging the content providers to peer to their network. If there isn't a recurring peering agreement in place, the ISP will let the content provider's peering interface overload which drives service quality down. Of course, the ISP ensures /their/ content provider is always on an interface with plenty of bandwidth to spare.

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#243

Post by op00to »

sumtechguy wrote: post #27
lr4444lr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sky was supposed to fall if net neutrality were abrogated, and IME, that hasn't happened. The only change I (and people I know) witnessed was throttling once broad data limits were exceeded, which IIRC wasn't what was at stake, and which I for one didn't object to, i.e., that people would have to pay for what they use. In short, I have not seen bandwidth or pricing weaponized at all to target specific businesses…

There are 2 'net neutrality' items in play and are conflated and team lines drawn up ages ago. One is the double charging of services. Buy service XYZ on the internet then the ISP says 'hey you buy or special package or ABC is throttled'. That is the one most people think of when they hear net neutrality. Or 'we have not cut a deal with XYZ no data for you'. Then there is the 'stop the cap' ones. Where 'hey here is a…

> One is the double charging of services. Buy service XYZ on the internet then the ISP says 'hey you buy or special package or ABC is throttled'.

ISPs also charge content providers to peer, getting paid three times for the same data.

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#244

Post by op00to »

hedora wrote: post #230
lr4444lr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sky was supposed to fall if net neutrality were abrogated, and IME, that hasn't happened. The only change I (and people I know) witnessed was throttling once broad data limits were exceeded, which IIRC wasn't what was at stake, and which I for one didn't object to, i.e., that people would have to pay for what they use. In short, I have not seen bandwidth or pricing weaponized at all to target specific businesses…

At one of my previous places, AT&T offered FTTN, but only if you used their router. The router somehow managed to break next-level NAT, so there was no way to use FTTN without giving AT&T access to your LAN. That violates California's network neutrality laws that prohibit discriminating against certain devices (though so does every single cell carrier plan that prohibits tethering, or swapping a phone with a tablet o…

> Comcast definitely weaponized data caps with absurd overage fees, and also didn't invest in backend network infrastructure until they were under 3MBps average video streaming speeds on their 100MBps plans.

This is almost certainly related to Comcast's handoffs to content providers, and not their backend which had plenty of capacity for commercial customers.

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#245

Post by xenadu02 »

bilsbie wrote: post #75

I’m pro net neutrality AFAIK. BUT We owe it to ourselves to go and look at all the fearmongering they were putting out about ending net neutrality and figuring out why it didn’t come to pass. And hopefully learning from that for future policy debates.

I don't know why I have to keep explaining the history of this. What people call "Net Neutrality" is just how the internet (and ARPANET before it) had always worked. No one had contemplated it working in any other way.

Then Verizon came along and started blocking well-known VPN ports unless you paid for a "business" account. The FCC responded with "Net Neutrality" saying no, you can't just decide to block certain protocols, websites, or services for monetary reasons. QoS should be enforced when requested by clients or for technical reasons (eg VoIP), not to create class tiers to squeeze both customers and the services they use for money on both ends. If you want more money raise your price of service.

If you think the bean counters at the big telco and cable companies aren't excited by the idea of charging you extra to use a VPN, a VoIP phone, and hitting the top 100 websites on the back end then I don't know what to tell you. Absent any legal barriers they can and they eventually will. Most people don't have meaningful competition so you'll take what daddy Comcast deigns to offer you or you can go back to 2Mbps ADSL.

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#246

Post by rsingel »

DanAtC wrote: post #201
vlovich123 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sonic charges you $30/month for gigabit and $50/month for 10gigabit if I recall correctly. No data caps. These prices are similar to what fiber costs in Europe (or at least France). Data caps are not fair pricing in a competitive environment but it seems that way when you have a duopoly of competition that collude on plans, pricing, and messaging.

Plus taxes, and fees, and equipment rental. Also that's only an introductory rate with a 1 year term. 1Gbps ends up being ~$70/mo off-contract.

Yeah, but most of those extra charges are because the FCC has failed to classify broadband as Title II. Because pure broadband hasn't been Title II, pure broadband providers have zero rights to get on utility poles.

So Sonic bundles in a voice line that no one uses - but that gives Sonic the right to get onto poles (owned by incumbents) at fair prices, and they can complain to the state and feds if they don't get that.

If we'd gotten classification right from the start (looking at you Michael Powell), that kind of chicanery would be unneccessary.

Still I'm paying $75 a month, fees and taxes included, for a 10Gbps symmetrical connection with no data cap. Happiest I've ever been with a broadband connection.

Voice Federal Subscriber Line Charge Fee - STI-0555086-8/PAIR200 6.50 Voice Federal Universal Service Fund Fee - STI-0555086-8/PAIR200 2.62 Voice California 911 Emergency Surcharge - STI-0555086-8/PAIR200 0.30 Voice Oakland Utility Users Tax - STI-0555086-8/PAIR200 1.46 Voice California Public Utility Commission User Fee - STI-0555086-8/PAIR200 0.08 Voice FCC Interstate Telecom Service Provider Fee - STI-0555086-8/PAIR200 0.04 Property Tax Allotment Surcharge - STI-0555086-8/PAIR200 1.64 Voice Regulatory Recovery Surcharge - STI-0555086-8/PAIR200 1.29 Fiber Phone Service - 5103800838 - STI-0555086-8/PAIR200 0.00 Fiber - Fusion 10Gbps - STI-0555086-8 59.99 Fiber Information - STI-0555086-8 - Data $49.99 Voice $10.00 0.00 Voice California 988 Suicide Prevention Surcharge - STI-0555086-8/PAIR200 0.08 Voice California Public Purpose Program Surcharge - STI-0555086-8/PAIR200 1.11

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#247

Post by op00to »

lr4444lr wrote: post #154
AlexandrB wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If net neutrality is not relevant anyways, why are ISPs so dead set against it?

Because it kept them under the FCC's thumb as common carriers, forcing them into inefficiencies to comply with regulations. There's a ton of stuff I want the govt. more involved with on the internet: data privacy, clamping down on CSAM, section 230 issues... forcing ISPs to take a total hands off approach to every traffic source on their pipes? That wasn't one of them. NN harmed ISPs' incentive to innovate. I have si…

> forcing ISPs to take a total hands off approach to every traffic source on their pipes? That wasn't one of them.

Verizon FIOS back in like 2014-2018 was in a constant pissing match with Netflix over who would pay for peering. Netflix wanted to pay for their half, and have Verizon pay for their half. Verizon wanted Netflix to pay not only the real costs of both sides, but a huge fee to offset "excess traffic". When Netflix (and Google, etc) decided to not pay, multi-megabyte speeds dropped to a few kilobytes a second. Hopping on a VPN to route the traffic around Verizon got speeds back to normal.

ISPs should be forced to peer with whoever wants to pay for peering.

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#248

Post by op00to »

dahfizz wrote: post #38

If you believed the scare tactics at the time, losing net neutrality literally threatened the end of the internet as we know it. But my internet has worked the same before, during, and after net neutrality. I really don't get what all the fuss is about. However, if you really do believe this is a civilization defining piece of regulation, Why leave it to the FCC? It seems like people on both sides are happy to leave…

> But my internet has worked the same before, during, and after net neutrality. I really don't get what all the fuss is about.

Mine didn't. Verizon blackmailed Netflix and Google repeatedly for access to their network. YouTube and Netflix were unusuable for FIOS customers until they came to an agreement where Netflix gave piles of cash to Verizon.

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#249

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

daveoc64 wrote: post #206
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On this site, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference. Shockingly to me, someone else in this thread writes how this is a conservative site... Well that guy must have a wildly different perspective from me!

On a global scale, the Democrats in the US are extremely conservative. "There are two major parties in America - a conservative party, and a very conservative party".

I know that is a popular line to say.

Economically, maybe, but not really. I think Europe is a lot better about hiding their corporate interests than the USA, but I think it's still largely capitalism-for-real behind the socialism-for-show. I can't think of how that statement is true, unless you look at things USA Left wants that they are unable to get, then saying they're conservative because they didn't get them. Like socialized healthcare.

What part are Democrats conservative over Europeans liberals? Healthcare, no I don't think so. Immigration? No. Guns? No. Free speech? No. Low taxes and small government? No. Abortion? lol no. Democrats in the USA were so up in arms over a 15 week limit in Missippi that they took it to the Supreme Court and lost Roe v Wade, but most of Europe is happily swimming along with 12 week bans.

So, maybe I just don't see it, but I hear this line all the time from progressives that are frustrated at Democrats for not doing all the hard left things they want. What am I missing? USA Democrats aren't conservative because they have a conservative party that opposes them.

What are USA Democrats so conservative at in their actual actions and desires?

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#250

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

aqme28 wrote: post #18
cddotdotslash wrote: post #4

One of the biggest arguments I remember being made back when net neutrality was a hot topic was that ISPs would bundle and sell specific websites as tiered plans. Infographics like this one [1] were shared widely. Has this happened in the US? I’ve definitely seen ISPs start to apply data caps and throttling, but haven’t seen the aforementioned packaging (at least with the major ISPs). I ask because this is one of the…

That didn't happen here, but that is an actual advertisement from a Portuguese ISP, not just some sensationalized propaganda.

So, you are saying some unverified tiny ISP bad marketing decision in Portugal in 2015 or earlier (that image is old) should be used to direct policy for the entire united states regardless of the reality of the actual practices?

That is exactly what sensationalized propaganda looks like in this case. You are doing it right now.

Post reply on HN