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

F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 286 posts

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#22

Post by admax88q »

sroerick wrote: post #10

It's so frustrating to me that this is all based around the stupid legal assumption that we have to stream everything. God forbid your user should download something to watch later, to prevent having to redownload every time you watch it. And then during peak Netflix hours, I just can't use the internet reliably. If anyone knows any source for Libre video works, that I can download and watch with complete freedom, pl…

What's worse, is that if the ISP had implemented multicast for real, then we could save enormous amounts of bandwidth.

Think of the wasted traffic has thousands of people watch a live stream in unison. Or the millions watching viral youtube videos only a few seconds apart.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#23

Post by higherpurpose »

sroerick wrote: post #10

It's so frustrating to me that this is all based around the stupid legal assumption that we have to stream everything. God forbid your user should download something to watch later, to prevent having to redownload every time you watch it. And then during peak Netflix hours, I just can't use the internet reliably. If anyone knows any source for Libre video works, that I can download and watch with complete freedom, pl…

If you had a 100 Mbps connection, like many other countries do, streaming Netflix in HD would not be a problem. So this is first and foremost a lazy monopolist problem, less so a congestion problem.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#25

Post by gnoway »

Well it is a little premature to cry doom before these guidelines are even adopted.

But if they are, it will be kind of funny to read in a few years the comments from ISPs re: anti-neutrality policies stifling 'new' streaming services:

"Our research shows there is weak to no consumer demand for alternative services"

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#26

Post by noobermin »

sroerick wrote: post #10

It's so frustrating to me that this is all based around the stupid legal assumption that we have to stream everything. God forbid your user should download something to watch later, to prevent having to redownload every time you watch it. And then during peak Netflix hours, I just can't use the internet reliably. If anyone knows any source for Libre video works, that I can download and watch with complete freedom, pl…

Well, this is not quite equivalent, but consider mobile platforms. Streaming makes much more sense there given the tighter storage constraints.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#27

Post by dragonwriter »

gnoway wrote: post #25

Well it is a little premature to cry doom before these guidelines are even adopted. But if they are, it will be kind of funny to read in a few years the comments from ISPs re: anti-neutrality policies stifling 'new' streaming services: "Our research shows there is weak to no consumer demand for alternative services"

> Well it is a little premature to cry doom before these guidelines are even adopted.

It might not be before they are adopted, but it is before they are proposed and, particularly, before the news stories based on inside leaks are even consistent about what the rules are in the area of concern.

EDIT: Not sure why the downvotes, but as I point out in another comment on the thread (with links to sourcs), there are at least three conflicting characterizations of what the new rules that the FCC chair is about to begin circulating and that the FCC might then propose with a public comment period will do on the point in question:

1. (NY Times): Allow ISPs to (apparently, with no signficant restrictions) negotiate per-content-provider rates for enhanced access to the ISPs users.

2. (WS Journal): Allow ISPs to offer enhanced access if the terms are commercially reasonable and open to all content providers.

3. (Reuters): Not address ISP-to-content-provider agreements at all.

My point is that its premature to react to the details of the rules when there isn't any consistent picture of what those details are likely to be.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#28

Post by lotu »

sroerick wrote: post #10

It's so frustrating to me that this is all based around the stupid legal assumption that we have to stream everything. God forbid your user should download something to watch later, to prevent having to redownload every time you watch it. And then during peak Netflix hours, I just can't use the internet reliably. If anyone knows any source for Libre video works, that I can download and watch with complete freedom, pl…

Honestly the assumption that we want to stream everything is a really good assumption. People are lazy and setting up a proper storage is tricky and costs money. This means 99.9% of people don't want to do it. Yes being in the .1% it would be nice if we were catered to but that's life.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#29

Post by mikeyouse »

cnordholm wrote: post #13
mikeyouse wrote: post #11

This is largely due to the US Federal Courts' recent rulings that invalidated the FCC's previous attempts to guarantee Net Neutrality. 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/technology/appeals-court-r... 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/business/fcc-to-propose-ne...

The FCC can regulate the internet under title II. They are simply refusing to.

In 2002, Colin Powell's son, Michael, was the Chairman of the FCC. He determined that broadband services weren't covered by Title II, and that they could be regulated 'better' under different statutes. That is the genesis for all of these problems.

Today, Michael Powell is the President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.[1]

Of course, today's FCC could walk that Title II ruling back, and reclassify ISPs from Title I to Title II, but that would be met with lawsuits for years.

1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Powell_(politician)

Post reply on HN