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

101–110 of 286 posts

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

#101

Post by grandalf »

I realize this view is controversial, but net neutrality is about as logical as arguing that all residential bandwidth should be dedicated symmetrical up/down.

As content + routes become mainstream (the top 1-2% of bandwidth), the price of hosting them approaches the dedicated bandwidth price. This is because the usage pattern variability is arbitraged upstream of the ISP.

Preferential QoS based on content source is a predictable consequence of this, since the ISP begins to have no opportunity for bandwidth arbitrage and must rely on some other revenue stream to avoid having to charge dedicated bandwidth prices.

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

#102

Post by dinkumthinkum »

stuaxo wrote: post #96
briantakita wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would it take to get someone who cares about the greater good (not an industry crony) appointed to these key roles?

The system should work like jury duty - much like in ancient greece where they had a system of lots (based on black + white balls) - you get chosen then have to do your best for your alloted time.

Is that because juries of neophytes work so well?

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

#103

Post by sytelus »

This law is the worst thing that could possibly happen to Internet. We need to as zealously fight against this as we did against SOPA. All the tech millionaires and billionaires out there: THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO SAVE INTERNET BY WIELDING YOUR CONNECTIONS. I'm not even sure how a cable lobbyist dick like Tom Wheeler got in FCC in first place and I continue to wonder how people like him would never hesitate to kill something as beautiful as the system that connects entire human being for their personal profits.

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

#104

Post by avar »

jessaustin wrote: post #54
Zigurd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't really true. Let's say we get structural separation and retail competition (which is a fantasy in our current situation). The backbone providers could still become rent-seekers by putting the arm on whatever service lacks technical alternatives to large amounts of bandwidth (which the retail customers already pay for). The retailers have more negotiating power than consumers do, but there is still a place…

What would stop backbone operators from doing that? I'd guess the same thing that's stopping them from doing it now: actual competition. The monopolists are only a problem at the edge.

This situation partially exists on the backbone in the form of paid peering.

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

#105

Post by tptacek »

tzs wrote: post #89
jebblue wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_(FCC) "Tom Wheeler is the current Chairman of the FCC.[1] Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry." Wow. This looks especially bad for consumers.

By "prior", they mean 30 years ago, at a time when the cable industry was the underdog fighting against the powerful broadcasters, and cable lobbyist [1] was a pro-consumer job. Looking at what he's been involved in since then [2], it's all over the place. There's stuff in cable, stuff in wireless, stuff in phone, co-founder of a company that repairs aerospace components, PBS director, and a bunch of other things. I'…

In fairness, the head of the AMA is probably reasonably described as a lobbyist.

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

#107

Post by sjtrny »

Selfcommit wrote: post #81
higherpurpose wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have a 100mbps connection.. I live in NJ. It costs me $80 a month (Which is robbery IMO). But still, I have it.

Here in Australia with the most mainstream ISP it costs $90/month for 200GB and a theoretical max speed of 24 Mbits/s via ADSL2 (I only get 10). By global standards you are not being robbed.

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

#108

Post by r00fus »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #56
briantakita wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would it take to get someone who cares about the greater good (not an industry crony) appointed to these key roles?

Stop electing the politicians who appoint cronies?

So with only two parties, both of which are corporatists, and money=speech means those with the most money buy the best laws (for themselves), you end up blaming the voter?

Remember in 2000 when Ralph Nader was prevented (by both parties) from attending debates? How many third parties get any visibility from the corporate-funded media?

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

#109

Post by cdash »

Tossrock wrote: post #63
hemancuso wrote: post #38

To strike a contrarian tone, how much is this going to matter a handful of years from now as the internet at large and bandwidth to the home continues to increase? In a decade is it unreasonable to expect that "really fast" home internet is 1 gigbit? At that point even your pokey 50mbit connection already has 10x-20x the bandwidth Netflix sees for a "good" connection (their metric). Does this make it harder for Netfl…

It's going to matter a lot, because consumer internet consumption is shifting inexorably toward mobile, which tends to have data caps. You could blow through the standard 2 GB monthly allotment in a single HD movie streamed to your phone. If suddenly Youtube videos no longer count toward your data allotment, you're much more likely to use Youtube, and not any other competitor which are metered.

It is not just mobile that has data caps either. Sure the caps are a lot higher than mobile caps of a few gigs but even 150-300 GB caps are pretty small.

At the highest bit rate, 1 hour of Netflix video is about 3.1 GB. Now add in the fact that there is only one internet connection per household so you will have multiple people watching Netflix video and doing everything else on the internet they do and it is just terrible. A digitally downloaded game, which is not just done on PC anymore but also will be huge on the new consoles can be around 30 GB or larger.

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

#110

Post by sytelus »

grandalf wrote: post #101

I realize this view is controversial, but net neutrality is about as logical as arguing that all residential bandwidth should be dedicated symmetrical up/down. As content + routes become mainstream (the top 1-2% of bandwidth), the price of hosting them approaches the dedicated bandwidth price. This is because the usage pattern variability is arbitraged upstream of the ISP. Preferential QoS based on content source is…

I'm not sure if you are applying this "logic" correctly. Bandwidth must be treated as utility, just like electricity and water. Like any other utilities, there should be a fixed charge for fair level of use and prorated charge beyond that to consumers of the utility. Here instead the proposal is to charge content providers and that too selectively. That means only big guys favored by cable companies can become content providers. Even worse, existing content providers can buddy up with cable companies to raise the entry point so new content providers have little or no chance. This is a complete utter disaster and clearly driven by cable industry lobby to tighten up their monopoly.
Post reply on HN