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

The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 337 posts

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#81

Post by otterley »

cycomanic wrote: post #69
burnte wrote: post #4

ISPs are desperate to be part of the monetary exchange of services over their infrastructure, they've been trying to become more than "dumb pipes" for decades and virtually no one wants that. Imagine if the water company could charge you more for a glass of water than a toilet flush.

I find it interesting how nobody blinks an eyelid at the massive profits raked in by companies like Google, Facebook etc. but as soon as the ISPs that create the infrastructure that makes all this happen (and innovate massively in the process) want some piece of the cake everyone cries foul. Now I actually strongly support net neutrality and maybe ISPs don't really need a piece of the cake, but it is still interestin…

There’s a reason for that. Neither Google nor Facebook are infrastructure providers. Infrastructure is a different business, and, since it frequently has natural monopolies, we regulate it so to provide the greatest good for the public and maximize stability and functionality. Infrastructure is an enabling foundation for competitive enterprise.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#82

Post by peddling-brink »

EPWN3D wrote: post #44
KaiserPro wrote: post #2

The thing that is actually missing from this entire essay is competition. The biggest single reason why the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) internet is shite is because of the monopolies that exist. In the EU there are similar offers for "enhanced" access, but its not speeding up/slowing down apps, but giving "free" access, as in not counting to your data cap. Instead of making the FCC stop fast lanes, the FC…

I was definitely someone who wrote the FCC (futilely) in support of net neutrality in 2017, and I figured the inevitable outcome of the FCC decision back then would be skyrocketing broadband costs, fast lanes, etc. Except none of it happened. It turns out there's actually kind of okay competition in this space. Maybe not as much as there should be, but prices have stayed reasonable, broadband access is expanding, and…

I know there’s a gun pointed at my head, but listen, nobody has pulled the trigger yet, it’s fine.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#83

Post by toast0 »

lsllc wrote: post #16
burnte wrote: post #4

ISPs are desperate to be part of the monetary exchange of services over their infrastructure, they've been trying to become more than "dumb pipes" for decades and virtually no one wants that. Imagine if the water company could charge you more for a glass of water than a toilet flush.

Well they sort of do already — typically you pay less for water for irrigation (usually because sewerage is metered by water usage and obv if it goes on the lawn it’s not going down the drain). In places like Florida however irrigation water is reclaimed and not treated the same was as drinking water and has totally separate plumbing and metering (and pricing).

> Well they sort of do already — typically you pay less for water for irrigation (usually because sewerage is metered by water usage and obv if it goes on the lawn it’s not going down the drain).

Aren't you paying more for your lawn water then?

If your sewer bill is based on your water bill[1]: a gallon of water for drinking results in a bill for a gallon of sewage treatment, which you'll use. A gallon of water for irrigation results in a bill for a gallon of sewage treatment which you won't use. Caveats: maybe you pee on the lawn, probably you perspire, sewer pipes are leaky: some of your sewage escapes out, some of your irrigation water escapes in.

[1] this is common, but I don't think anywhere close to universal; even ignoring lack of universal municipal water and lack of universal municipal sewage. Flatrate by connection size is also common. Approximately zero households have individual sewer meters, but some commercial/industrial customers may have them so they can be billed on actual usage.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#84

Post by ryandrake »

dave4420 wrote: post #12
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is limited room for competition in many of these categories. For example, the infrastructure costs for telecoms make it very difficult for new competition (like a startup) to enter the market. The existing ones benefited from past funding and a lack of competition, but have captured market share. In some cases, there are other practical limitations, for example, splitting up wireless spectrum. Apart fro…

You force the infrastructure operator to allow competitors to use their infrastructure on a fair basis. It’s what happens in Europe (including the UK). It works.

OR, (and I know this is near heresy) you force the infrastructure operator to allow competitors to use their infrastructure regardless of whether it is fair to that operator.

This isn't a schoolyard playground. We don't have to play fair and treat these megacorporation with kid gloves. When the shoe is on the other foot, corporations don't play fair with us. "Fair" doesn't even come into the picture when they are in the conference room deciding their prices and terms. So why should the government treat them fairly when it comes to a regulatory solution?

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#85

Post by 310260 »

unethical_ban wrote: post #28
extheat wrote: post #10

My views on this have changed over time. More and more it seems like policy people encroaching on technical decisions without fully understanding the rationale behind them. Is there a good reason to segment different types of content, such as for optimal network performance? Ultimately all wireless communications have to work within the bounds of physics no matter what the made up human laws say. If there's a limited…

The big difference is "type of content" vs. "brand of content". If a network theoretically prioritized phone calls, email and registered messaging platforms, or deprioritized bulk file-sharing during congested periods, that would be reasonable. What I see here is ISPs trying to rent-seek and get big players like Netflix or big game companies to pay for being on the premium tier, while charging customers for the privi…

>If a network theoretically prioritized phone calls

This already exists and is an example of a good use of priority. Cellular networks offer Voice over LTE and this is inherently prioritized over all other network traffic. This is done specifically for E911 but also implements special settings so calls can continue to go through even when coverage is very poor (and where VoIP apps would start to fail).

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#86

Post by eknkc »

burnte wrote: post #4

ISPs are desperate to be part of the monetary exchange of services over their infrastructure, they've been trying to become more than "dumb pipes" for decades and virtually no one wants that. Imagine if the water company could charge you more for a glass of water than a toilet flush.

I expected electricity grids to do that. Different prices for EV charging, for home use etc.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#87

Post by tuwtuwtuwtuw »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #8
KaiserPro wrote: post #2

The thing that is actually missing from this entire essay is competition. The biggest single reason why the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) internet is shite is because of the monopolies that exist. In the EU there are similar offers for "enhanced" access, but its not speeding up/slowing down apps, but giving "free" access, as in not counting to your data cap. Instead of making the FCC stop fast lanes, the FC…

I think there is limited room for competition in many of these categories. For example, the infrastructure costs for telecoms make it very difficult for new competition (like a startup) to enter the market. The existing ones benefited from past funding and a lack of competition, but have captured market share. In some cases, there are other practical limitations, for example, splitting up wireless spectrum. Apart fro…

I live in sweden and can pick from roughly 30 different ISPs where I live. I don't live in some big city, but in a smaller village. There is tons of room for competition if the laws are set up to push for it.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#88

Post by beeboobaa3 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #72
wkat4242 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually Odido but everyone I know calls it Odildo :P it was really a stupid name choice

I suspect it's a brand name they tested across multiple languages, etc

Most countries are somewhat familiar with english slang, such as the word dildo.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#89

Post by criddell »

orev wrote: post #18
extheat wrote: post #10

My views on this have changed over time. More and more it seems like policy people encroaching on technical decisions without fully understanding the rationale behind them. Is there a good reason to segment different types of content, such as for optimal network performance? Ultimately all wireless communications have to work within the bounds of physics no matter what the made up human laws say. If there's a limited…

ALL discussions of Net Neutrality allow providers to prioritize traffic for capacity management purposes. This so well known by now that I have to wonder if this comment is part of an astroturf campaign (or maybe you’ve been influenced by one).

With T-Mobile, I get free MLB and Netflix - both are things I normally pay for.

I wonder if net neutrality becomes law, will they have to stop paying for me to access those services? If so, that would be a bummer.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#90

Post by beeboobaa3 »

EPWN3D wrote: post #44
KaiserPro wrote: post #2

The thing that is actually missing from this entire essay is competition. The biggest single reason why the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) internet is shite is because of the monopolies that exist. In the EU there are similar offers for "enhanced" access, but its not speeding up/slowing down apps, but giving "free" access, as in not counting to your data cap. Instead of making the FCC stop fast lanes, the FC…

I was definitely someone who wrote the FCC (futilely) in support of net neutrality in 2017, and I figured the inevitable outcome of the FCC decision back then would be skyrocketing broadband costs, fast lanes, etc. Except none of it happened. It turns out there's actually kind of okay competition in this space. Maybe not as much as there should be, but prices have stayed reasonable, broadband access is expanding, and…

> It turns out there's actually kind of okay competition in this space. Maybe not as much as there should be, but prices have stayed reasonable, broadband access is expanding, and people by and large don't seem bothered by data caps when they're subject to them

lol. This is better attributed to you getting used to the shitty situation you, and everyone else in your country, is dealing with. Your speeds are shit and you're paying too much for them, and those "not bothered by data caps" just don't know better anymore.

Post reply on HN