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

251–260 of 302 posts

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

#251

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

Tostino wrote: post #194
birthdaydog wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's predictable from the title. HN is an intensely conservative site.

A ton on here like to pretend to take a moderate viewpoint when espousing strictly conservative views or talking points.

A quick question... If everywhere else on the internet you went to was extremely liberal / progressive / whatever... And then you came here to see older and more professional people with different opinions that were some conservative, but most more moderate, and many still very liberal... How would you know if you were the center point or an outlier?

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

#252

Post by IshKebab »

Keegs wrote: post #116
xwdv wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The harm is that it takes away resources from other important issues that require our focus right now.

I know you're kidding, but it surprises me how often I hear the idea that an organization the size of the FCC can't multitask.

You didn't hear that idea. You heard the idea that the FCC doesn't have unlimited resources. Do you disagree with that?

(For the record I don't agree that this is unimportant, but you're arguing against a straw man.)

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

#253

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

TheCaptain4815 wrote: post #214

Isn't the entire notion of NN outdated given the mass censorship that's sprung up the past 4-5 years? Isn't it vastly more important to ensure free speech on the internet than the speed of your netflix stream. Seems like a misguided battle.

You should know a lot of the people you are asking that good question to, and the very people pushing for NN again are the people that saw no issue with the past 4-5 years because "the right people" were being censored.

In a more steelman argument, you could probably discuss that another form of censorship could always come in the form of a tier that only includes "approved sources" or throttling anyone deemed as "misinformation".

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

#254

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

dantheman wrote: post #99
woudsma wrote: post #33

At my previous job I worked on a digital campaign protesting the repeal of Net Neutrality[0]. It was a nice technical challenge to save (and render) those millions of leaflets. More about the project here[1] [0]: https://paperstorm.it/ [1]: https://studiomoniker.com/projects/paperstorm

Glad you failed. This is pure propaganda.

Anyone downvoting you should actually clink those links. There is no honest and good faith discussion there at all.

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

#255

Post by AnthonyMouse »

toast0 wrote: post #229
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is conflating two different things. If Netflix connects to Comcast in Los Angeles and wants to deliver traffic to Comcast customers in New York, they're using Comcast as a transit network. If Netflix connects to Comcast in Los Angeles and wants to deliver traffic to Comcast customers in Los Angeles, they're not, and getting the traffic between their house and the IX in Los Angeles is what Comcast is charging the…

What other transit ISP gives you a discount because the traffic is local? Do you or your customer get a discount when you're both only connected with a transit ISP? No, both parties pay for connection to the transit ISP (even if it's the same). Traditional wired telephone networks are almost always caller pays (although cellphones in the US are caller pays toll, callee pays for wireless segment), but IP networking ha…

> What other transit ISP gives you a discount because the traffic is local?

You don't need transit for local traffic, the destination network is already in the same IX as you are. Transit is the thing that carries traffic from one IX to the others.

> Do you or your customer get a discount when you're both only connected with a transit ISP? No, both parties pay for connection to the transit ISP (even if it's the same).

If you and your customer are both in the same IX you don't use a transit ISP at all.

> If you want to connect to customers behind ISP A, you typically need to pay an ISP that's connected to ISP A, or pay ISP A, or qualify for peering with ISP A. If you and ISP A are both paying ISP B for that data, then there's motivation for you an ISP A to peer; if not, ISP A says we're happy to take your traffic through peering with these ISPs or you can pay us for a direct connection.

Paying Cogent (or Comcast) to carry traffic from one IX to another is normal; otherwise you would need to run your own fiber or have a presence in the other IX and it allows you to avoid that cost.

But if you do have a presence in the other IX, what are you paying them for? It's just a monopoly rent because they control the only network path to their residential customers.

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

#256

Post by travisporter »

lr4444lr wrote: post #11
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…

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…

The sky can’t fall, it’s not really physically possible. Also, maybe isps backed off for now, who’s to say this won’t change in the future? Shareholder value trumps all, you know

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

#257

Post by jstarfish »

thehappypm wrote: post #224
InitialLastName wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UPS cares if you are shipping something that is a physical or legal hazard for them, because they are responsible for the safety of their employees, facilities, and the other packages. If you can make a reasonable argument that one kind of data or another creates a meaningful hazard for the pipe that carries it, please do.

I just think this analogy sounds like someone who has never actually shipped something. There are many rules for shipping—-it is silly to say that UPS just takes the box and ships it without a care. UPS cares if the content is fragile, illegal, dangerous to ship, overweight, alive, high value, perishable, tobacco, magnetic.. the list goes on and on.

You are not in the right on this one. Your argument is drifting far away from what net neutrality even is.

UPS does not care what what they're carrying unless it shits or explodes. Anything meeting most of your criteria, they simply will not ship in the first place. Net neutrality specifically mitigates rent-seeking behavior, implying if UPS knew there was something expensive in the box, they'd shake you down for more money to ship it. The only time they do this is in handling hazmat.

They sort of do this in reverse though when it comes to damage claims. They'll first try to find a reason not to pay out, but once they know what's in the box, they angle to reimburse you the least possible amount of money for it. I can't tell you how many times we would lose/destroy priceless stuff like a signed baseball from some World Series and write a check...for the $3 it cost to buy a new baseball (TBF, especially with prototypes/historical artifacts, many such claims are dog-ate-my-homework fraudulent).

Here's an actual case: a container ship carrying designer leather products from Italy took on water and a claim was made for $100k worth of retail losses. We were never going to pay that, since there's no guaranteeing any amount of it would have sold at that price, and anybody that makes money from loss is either profiteering or committing fraud (see: coffin ship). The most we would have paid out was at the price the factory sold it to the designer for ($2-$10 per diem), but IIRC we denied it since no damage was reported along the way. They didn't insure anything, on paper $100k worth of product was lost, and they didn't give a shit-- in reality they lost $2k in drop-shipped crap stamped with an expensive logo. Designer goods are inherently worthless.

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

#258

Post by thfuran »

tzs wrote: post #227
thfuran wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Exempting services from data caps is not against net neutrality, Excluding some services from bandwidth cap is perhaps slightly less extreme than throttling specific services, which is itself less extreme than blocking those services outright. All are violations of net neutrality. The job of the ISP is to provide network connectivity, not decide how I use it.

> The job of the ISP is to provide network connectivity, not decide how I use it. They do that. If your plan has, say, a 1 TB cap with no services that are exempt from the data cap you can pick any 1 TB from any mix of services you want without hitting your cap. If your plan has 1 TB cap but say Netflix is exempt from the cap you can still pick the exact same 1 TB from the exact same mix of services without hitting y…

>but say Netflix is exempt from the cap

That's obviously and blatantly them putting their thumb on the scale. It'd be like if Burger King were to pay car manufacturers to make it so that the second half of the gas tank only works for driving to Burger King drive-throughs. That's not how cars should work and ISPs shouldn't pull the same kind of shit.

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

#259

Post by triceratops »

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

This is just another name for the "Section 230" issues you claim to care about.

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

#260

Post by thehappypm »

jstarfish wrote: post #257
thehappypm wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just think this analogy sounds like someone who has never actually shipped something. There are many rules for shipping—-it is silly to say that UPS just takes the box and ships it without a care. UPS cares if the content is fragile, illegal, dangerous to ship, overweight, alive, high value, perishable, tobacco, magnetic.. the list goes on and on.

You are not in the right on this one. Your argument is drifting far away from what net neutrality even is. UPS does not care what what they're carrying unless it shits or explodes. Anything meeting most of your criteria, they simply will not ship in the first place. Net neutrality specifically mitigates rent-seeking behavior, implying if UPS knew there was something expensive in the box, they'd shake you down for mor…

Net neutrality is, quite literally, treating all packets of data the same, not caring about what type of data it is. An analogy that says it’s like UPS, because UPS will ship any box and it doesnt care about what’s in it, is a bad analogy because UPS will gladly refuse to ship many things—-it DOES care what’s in the box.
Post reply on HN