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

191–200 of 337 posts

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#191

Post by mardifoufs »

randomdata wrote: post #65
jszymborski wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and to a lesser extent Canada's Not to turn this into a pissing contest, but Canada's internet is far more shite and far more captured by an oligopoly. Independent ISPs are harder to find than competition up here in the North.

Canada isn't so bad off when it comes to wired service. Several ISPs are owned by the government: Sasktel, Bruce Telecom, Tbaytel, CityWest. And many more are co-operatives owned by the customers. The mobile space is more challenging. A number of those co-ops and government ISPs were running mobile service back in the mid 2000s, but they never found the customer base and most of them eventually shut it down, Tbaytel…

Those are completely irrelevant in 95% of Canada. There's bell, Rogers, and Telus. I guess Videotron in Quebec too. That's pretty much it and even then, here in Quebec it's either Videotron or bell, or their resellers. At least in Montreal.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#192

Post by parineum »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #177
jallen_dot_dev wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn't the monopoly employ the same cost-saving measures for even bigger margins?

> Why doesn't the monopoly employ the same cost-saving measures for even bigger margins? They would. The issue is that competition alone wouldn't fix it, because there is an information deficit. Some people will pick the lowest price and not realize that the ISP offering it is taking kickbacks from incumbent services to degrade their own competitors. And since this is always bad -- it's anti-competitive in the market…

So the solution there is transparency.

I'd be much happier if the government regulations gave me information to make an informed decision rather than forced a decision on me.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#193

Post by mardifoufs »

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…

If that's true, then why does the US have higher average and median broadband speeds than pretty much every European country[0]? The narrative that is seen online isn't necessarily representative of the reality, Americans just like to complain more. In my experience, bundled data whatsapp/YouTube or whatever else is much more common in Europe too and no one really complains because again, Americans are just that much more vocal.

[0] for mobile, they are also in the top 15. For fixed broadband, they are 5th. https://www.speedtest.net/global-index#fixed

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#194

Post by iknowstuff »

mardifoufs wrote: post #193
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…

If that's true, then why does the US have higher average and median broadband speeds than pretty much every European country[0]? The narrative that is seen online isn't necessarily representative of the reality, Americans just like to complain more. In my experience, bundled data whatsapp/YouTube or whatever else is much more common in Europe too and no one really complains because again, Americans are just that much…

Here’s some better research https://research.rewheel.fi/downloads/Wireless_market_operat...

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#195

Post by Larrikin »

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 haven't checked lately, but Comcast tried that data cap crap and was completely pushed back on in every economically important state they tried it in or there was actually an option someone could switch too. I was shocked in Chicago when I got an overage fee, but I promptly switched to RCN even before Illinois shut it down.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#196

Post by braiamp »

pipes wrote: post #160
holmesworcester wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the empirical record on this shows that we see more net neutrality violations by ISPs in marketplaces with high competition.[1] This is counter-intuitive but here's how it works: In a competitive marketplace ISPs have tighter margins and look for every opportunity for cost savings, so if throttling a high-bandwidth application only affects a small percentage of customers, and only a tiny tech-savvy minority…

I thought net neutrality was about ISPs trying to get netflix, facebook etc to pay them extra not to throttle. The only throttling I've heard of here in the UK (which has lots of providers and competition) is on torrenting. Are there examples of what you are talking about with zoom etc? Because as far as I can reason: if an isp throttled something like that in a high competition market, they'd lose their customers. A…

It is multiple things based on a simple concept: no traffic should be discriminated based on source, destination or type. That means that netflix ones and zeros are treated the same as facebook, same as your web page filled with cat pics, same as torrents.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#197

Post by amluto »

I’d like to see a lot more nuance.

> For example, would it be “unreasonably discriminatory” to create a 5G fast lane that includes the most popular apps in a category since it responds to consumer preferences?

What’s in it for the ISP if they can’t collect money for it?

> There’s lots of ways for ISPs to use slices for things that are not normal internet service such as a dedicated slice for a farming operation using remote controlled tractors, slices for telemetry data and oversight of autonomous cars, or providing a slice for a stadium’s video system at a crowded game.

Really? Will the ISP allow anyone to get such a slice under fair, reasonable, and non discriminatory terms? Or will this just favor companies with a cozy relationship with an ISP? Just because these industries aren’t direct-to-consumer doesn’t mean the same issues don’t exist?

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#198

Post by papichulo2023 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #29
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…

> 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. That's also in breach of EU net neutrality laws. A Dutch ISP lost a lawsuit over this for providing free Spotify traffic. I don't remember which one, I think it was T Mobile (now called Odildo or something lol)

Kinda funny how neutrality is hurting consumers. I dont think many of us thought about this potential benefit.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#199

Post by godelski »

freedomben wrote: post #174
godelski wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in Tennessee when Google Fiber was announced there. At the time Chattanooga (and a few small towns) already had fiber internet that were offered by the utilities companies. It was an absolute shitshow. Actually, a shitshow would have been cleaner. Immediately AT&T rolls out gigabit internet, but not everywhere. I was in one of the small towns with gig and the previous renter had AT&T. AT&T literally cut the l…

Libertarian does seem to mean different things to different people, but if somebody is supporting government or propping them up because they are concerned about preserving or maintaining current or traditional social values, that is the definition of a social conservative, not a libertarian. A libertarian position on that would be a "you do you" , but don't force others to do "you." A "the government should enforce…

Most of these people would repeat the common lines of taxation is theft, government is bad, prefer small government, complain about things like that existence of USPS/FDA (and an inaccurate story about peanut butter)/health instructors, and all those things you'd stereotype of those positions. They'd also take positions like you say about things like drugs (despite the state having a lot of dry counties, including the one Jack Daniels is in...).

Truth is that people say they believe a lot of things but don't act as if those beliefs are true. I think people like labels more than beliefs.

A common one is how common it is to say that all politicians are corrupt. I know people that say that like it's a catch phrase and then when we talk post voting they vote in incumbents. ¯\ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#200

Post by AnthonyMouse »

parineum wrote: post #192
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why doesn't the monopoly employ the same cost-saving measures for even bigger margins? They would. The issue is that competition alone wouldn't fix it, because there is an information deficit. Some people will pick the lowest price and not realize that the ISP offering it is taking kickbacks from incumbent services to degrade their own competitors. And since this is always bad -- it's anti-competitive in the market…

So the solution there is transparency. I'd be much happier if the government regulations gave me information to make an informed decision rather than forced a decision on me.

Transparency is part of the problem. It makes the anti-competitive practice easier to carry out because customers don't know they're getting screwed. But there's still a potential anti-trust issue even with perfect information.

Suppose Facebook doesn't want anyone using their competitors, so they subsidize the cost on some ISPs that then block their competitors. The customers of those ISPs are 15% of the market, and they know the other competitors are blocked, but they want the discount. Then the other 85% of people have to use Facebook in order to communicate with anyone on one of those ISPs, and social networks have a network effect, so now everybody is stuck on Facebook even if they don't use one of those ISPs, because they know somebody who does. This is anti-competitive and so an anti-trust problem.

Post reply on HN