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

111–120 of 286 posts

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

#111

Post by Bud »

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…

"Continue to increase"? As has been amply documented in various HN threads, it hasn't increased at all in the last 15 years or so, really. Certainly not to the degree one would have expected. DSL speeds are basically exactly the same (slower in many cases) as they were in the late 1990s. If you are lucky and in the right urban area, you might have fiber or cable internet with faster speeds, but otherwise? It's still the late 1990s. And the prices, if anything, are higher today for the same service.

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

#112

Post by randomfool »

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…

Disagree that it's comparable to symmetrical up/down- the bandwidth my ISP charges me is irregardless of the direction. Your argument would be valid if I were only paying for data that I send, but I'm not.

Why can't I tell my provider that I want to minimize the latency when playing a first-person shooter, and I'm willing to pay for it?

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

#113

Post by rhubarbquid »

tokenizer wrote: post #69
quotemstr wrote: post #12

Decisions like this lend a certain credence to recent studies showing that only the desires of the economic and political elite actually affect policy.

What a fancy way of saying we don't live in a functioning republic.

That was exactly the conclusion of the paper. The US is effectively an oligarchy.

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

#114

Post by transfire »

Here comes the proverbial "Consumer Choice": Which primary Internet package would you like: Google Plus, Microsoft Office with XBox Live, Facebook, or Yahoo? Do you need any specialty cloud services: Amazon, Dropbox, Spotify? Would you like full access to uncertified internet sites for an additional $15/mo?

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

#115

Post by ipsin »

baconner wrote: post #37

I read this as FCC plans to allow slow lanes.

I agreed, that was my first reading as well. I mean, the only reason you would want to pay money, as a content provider, is if your service is rate-limited to a degree that affects your customer.

It's not as if that "fast lane" will be gigabit speed. It'll be the same "up to" speed the customer was paying for in the first place.

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

#116

Post by spinchange »

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'…

What do you think the primary motivation for industry trade associations is, in general? The Cable TV business has been under constant threat of regulatory action since its inception. This is like its principal business risk because they are basically monopolies everywhere they operate. It is extraordinarily specious to compare it to the AMA.

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

#117

Post by Brakenshire »

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…

> 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.

I'd appreciate a simpler explanation of your point, for mere mortals like myself!

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

#118

Post by chris_mahan »

Touche wrote: post #58

Game over. The internet was fun while it lasted. Anyone want to start a mesh network startup?

We need a raspberrypi-like device with wifi built-in, that can be fully off-grid (with battery, solar panel) and have about 100GB of storage, for about $100, and we can make this work.

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

#119

Post by curun1r »

raverbashing wrote: post #20
parfe wrote: post #9

In six months FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will be a VP at NBC Universal/Comcast. Not a bribe; just coincidence.

Google, Apple and Netflix just have to bribe harder

Why? Fastlane charges are just another barrier to entry for potential upstart competitors. The companies you've listed are big enough to negotiate separate contracts for a lower rate or create solutions like OpenConnect to lower their costs. What better way to ensure that they have little-to-no competition than to have a crippling fee that smaller competitors would have to pay just to compete with them?

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

#120

Post by eli »

kzrdude wrote: post #84
saraid216 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could run for office. Would you appoint cronies?

You could run, but how to get the funding to be an actual contender?

Oh, c'mon, that's just an excuse. In fact, it's the same excuse people use to avoid entrepreneurship.

Money helps you run a campaign, just like it helps you run a business. But sometimes the scrappy, bootstrapped startup still beats the big entrenched enterprise. That's why we're on HN, right?

Post reply on HN