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

221–230 of 337 posts

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#221

Post by _pigpen__ »

Zigurd wrote: post #45

I think the article gets network slicing wrong. Using network slicing instead of the traffic shaping that the mobile edge router probably supports is a strange idea. The showcase network slicing use case was public safety comms. Network slicing is AFAIK not much used because it clashes with roaming. The article describes network slicing as reserving spectrum for certain apps. That's not how it works. It reserves capa…

So surprised I had to scroll too far for this reply. I actually work for one of the major US carriers. My job is literally to figure out how to apply the technical capabilities of 5G to solve business problems. NONE of the US carriers have figured out how to actually deliver network slicing beyond, say, reserving capacity for first responders. And, as you say, it’s about capacity, not speed per se. We want to make sure that, say, an AGV can offload kinematics to the MEC and navigate in real time in dynamic environments. The poster child for network slicing is the surgeon doing telesurgery over a 5G network (But that’s likely to remain a poster child). We’re figuring out how to provide network slices for autonomous vehicles, mobile teleoperation, etc., in all use cases we’re examining it because something BAD could happen absent guaranteed capacity. I have never ever heard anyone talk about using network slicing for QoS for consumer apps.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#222

Post by metaphor »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #142
cycomanic wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What innovations to ISPs make? I thought they largely just installed equipment from the same group of vendors. I’m genuinely curious if anyone knows of any.

You're staring right at it:

5G --> 3GPP --> ATIS[1] --> includes every major ISP in the US

Equipment manufacturers are just one piece of a much, much bigger puzzle. Standards development towards at-scale adoption, global interoperability, etc. is just as important; consumers just see the end game of all that backend work, and to be quite frank, it's grossly underappreciated.

[1] https://www.atis.org/overview/membership/members/

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#223

Post by parineum »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #200
parineum wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it's much more likely people stop using Facebook in that condition. People may be "stuck" with Meta because everyone is on it but the situation you're describing is a big difference between zero friction to make an account and join everybody else and change your ISP so you can talk to your grandma and look at cats on instagram.

I'd rather have choice and transparency and see if the situation you've described arises. It sounds completely unrealistic to me and we don't have to make laws and regulations cover every single edge case right away, they can be modified as we go.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#224

Post by nox101 »

holmesworcester wrote: post #139
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…

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…

Selection bias. They only picked UK and US. Plenty of countries in Asia have robust competition and is arguably a reason why they are so cheap and so good. One company offers twice the speed for the same price. People quickly start switching and new accounts (people coming of age) go to that cheaper better company. The other companies are forced to follow suit or lose their customers.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#225

Post by tick_tock_tick »

seattle_spring wrote: post #21
throwaway35777 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The biggest single reason why the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) internet is shite... Speak for yourself, but I live on the west coast and my Internet connection is great. Edit: downvoters, what are the problems with U.S. internet?

What's your Internet speed up and down, provider, and monthly cost? Actual monthly cost, not temporary promotions.

I pay $55 a month for 1gps symmetrical at&t fiber. No caps I normally hit 2TB a month and they've never complained. Somedays I only seem to get like 800mpbs of that gig but it's rare.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#226

Post by bsder »

godelski wrote: post #117
spullara wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Best internet in the country is offered by a monopoly in Chattanooga. Up to 25 Gbit up/down.

Monopoly? That's a bit bold of a claim. The provider you're talking about is the utility company. You might not know why the utility company provides the internet either. It's because before that they couldn't get the other companies (AT&T, Comcast, Hughe, Verizon) to offer good speeds and reasonable rates. The utility also doesn't take a profit. Mind you, those other companies still operate and no one is holding the…

> I really REALLY wish more people/cities would take this "fuck you, we'll do it ourselves" attitude.

This is hard. Start here: https://madned.substack.com/p/thin-pipe-part-i

The problem is the activation energy and a bunch of people who will oppose you no matter how useful something is.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#227

Post by tick_tock_tick »

seattle_spring wrote: post #47
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$70/month for 10Gb/10Gb Actual speeds are more like 5/7. But I’m happy!

In the US? Can you link to the promo page showing where others can obtain such a deal? Even if you deliver, surely you know that such a connection is an extreme, extreme outlier?

That's not really that rare in the USA though? Most decently sized cities have some form of fiber offering that will at-least give you a gig for $50 a month or so.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#228

Post by holmesworcester »

nox101 wrote: post #224
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…

Selection bias. They only picked UK and US. Plenty of countries in Asia have robust competition and is arguably a reason why they are so cheap and so good. One company offers twice the speed for the same price. People quickly start switching and new accounts (people coming of age) go to that cheaper better company. The other companies are forced to follow suit or lose their customers.

Yes, competition works for factors that the majority of consumers are aware of, like price and speed. But it doesn't work for enforcing net neutrality.

If you model it, how could competition work to protect a YC startup with 1,000 or 10,000 users?

You can't start an alternative ISP at that scale, so it's unthinkable that a new ISP would emerge just to serve that throttled startup's pissed off users.

And again, only a tiny minority of users would correctly attribute throttling-induced failure to the ISP. Most will attribute it to the new startup being janky.

Even or those who do correctly attribute it, what are they going to do? Convince everyone they want to use this new product with to switch ISPs?

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#229

Post by lsllc »

toast0 wrote: post #83
lsllc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

There's a second meter that tracks the irrigation usage and that's how they subtract the sewer charges for irrigation. Of course you have to pay extra for the meter to be installed and there's often an additional "standing charge" for that extra meter in every bill, but it's usually since the sewer rates are quite high, it's worth doing.

My municipality uses 75% of the water usage (minus the reading from the meter used for irrigation) as the basis for the sewer charge.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#230

Post by lsllc »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #217
lsllc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The number of places in Florida that do that is tiny.

I suppose it depends, but it's pretty common to see signs saying "Non-Potable Reclaimed Water used for Irrigation" in and around housing developments, hotels, shopping and commercial areas as well as resorts and golf courses.

According to this, Florida uses 820M gals of reclaimed water per day although this isn't all necessarily used for irrigation.

https://floridadep.gov/water/domestic-wastewater/content/flo...

Post reply on HN