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

FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 343 posts

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#101

Post by mwsherman »

ColinDabritz wrote: post #20

"And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers." I have a measure in mind that won't harm consumers. Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. (Gee that sounds a lot like net neutrality.) Anything less is open for abuse. Perhaps "Discrimination" is a good w…

CDNs are essentially identical (technologically and economically) to what Netflix bought from Comcast: http://clipperhouse.com/2014/05/07/what-netflix-bought-from-...

To my mind, I can’t imagine a rule that describes a fast lane that doesn’t also describe a CDN.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#102

Post by dragonwriter »

kenrikm wrote: post #36

Great! the FCC has officially sanctioned ISP's to be Trolls, demanding some gold to cross their bridge. This guarantees that there will always be multiple levels of peering speed even if the connections are upgraded and are able to easily handle the load. They won't want to give up their troll gold. That's just peachy, thanks for letting us get screwed over even more, Go USA!

> the FCC has officially sanctioned ISP's to be Trolls, demanding some gold to cross their bridge.

No, the DC Circuit did that when it struck down the FCC's old Open Internet order. The FCC has proposed a draft plan to limit harassment by the trolls, and asked the public for comments on how to make it better before "official sanction" is given to any rule.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#103

Post by lvs »

twoodfin wrote: post #48
ColinDabritz wrote: post #20

"And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers." I have a measure in mind that won't harm consumers. Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. (Gee that sounds a lot like net neutrality.) Anything less is open for abuse. Perhaps "Discrimination" is a good w…

Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. It's (relatively) cheap for Netflix or their CDN partners to connect their content-serving systems to a few dozen "meet me" rooms where it's "easy" for Comcast to hook as many wires up as necessary to receive the requested data into their network at an acceptable rate. That's all Netflix or the…

This is a false choice, born of deception. Comcast's allocations are not zero sum between upgrading and user fees. They're taking record profits every quarter, and customer fees are higher than they've ever been. They are choosing to shoulder the costs of network infrastructure on everyone except their investors.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#104

Post by johnward »

berrypicker wrote: post #29
kirualex wrote: post #3

Yet another blow to Net-Neutrality...

I don't see a problem. You can switch ISP if your current one isn't net-neutral. Why should you force businesses to operate in certain way? They're not breaking any laws.

In many markets you cannot in fact switch.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#106

Post by twoodfin »

mschulkind wrote: post #74
twoodfin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. It's (relatively) cheap for Netflix or their CDN partners to connect their content-serving systems to a few dozen "meet me" rooms where it's "easy" for Comcast to hook as many wires up as necessary to receive the requested data into their network at an acceptable rate. That's all Netflix or the…

Your comment is indicative of why this discussion is so difficult to have and why it's even tougher for the general public to understand or even care. The way this has always works, and is not changing based on anything 'network neutrality' related, is that generally the sending network (Netflix) pays the receiving network (Comcast) based on something like the 95th percentile of their sending rate. It maybe not be li…

It maybe not be linear, but if Netflix starts sending 2x traffic, they will pay something like 1.8x-2x. That's not changing, and nobody is disputing this.

Are you arguing that Netflix's costs to scale traffic into Comcast are commensurate with Comcast's costs to scale the delivery of that traffic to consumers? I don't think that's true. Didn't Level 3 just blog[1] that they largely operate on a settlement-free basis? Prior to their deal with Comcast, Netflix may have been paying Level 3, and Level 3 may have been paying Comcast, but neither could have been paying the order-of-billions Comcast would need to spend to support, say, doubled Netflix primetime traffic.

[1] http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/observations-inte...

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#107

Post by johnward »

trurl wrote: post #37
berrypicker wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see a problem. You can switch ISP if your current one isn't net-neutral. Why should you force businesses to operate in certain way? They're not breaking any laws.

Clearly you aren't living in the United States. My choices are Comcast, Comcast, and Comcast. I'm really starting to think mesh networks are going to be the only solution.

Same here. There is literally no other option for broadband. Not even DSL. My other option is satellite?

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#108

Post by johnward »

berrypicker wrote: post #85
trurl wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly you aren't living in the United States. My choices are Comcast, Comcast, and Comcast. I'm really starting to think mesh networks are going to be the only solution.

Are there no smaller, 'independent' ISPs which aren't part of conglomerates that are unlikely to remain net-neutral?

Not in most areas of the US.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#109

Post by Orthanc »

This doesn't sound good:

"6. Enhance competition. The Commission will look for opportunities to enhance Internet access competition. One obvious candidate for close examination was raised in Judge Silberman’s separate opinion, namely legal restrictions on the ability of cities and towns to offer broadband services to consumers in their communities."

http://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-chairman-tom-wheel...

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#110

Post by worace »

sinak wrote: post #81

The title and post are both quite misleading. The commissioners didn't approve Tom Wheeler's plan (to regulate the Internet under Section 706), but voted to go ahead with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and commenting period. Tom Wheeler stated multiple times that Title II classification is still on the table. There'll now be a 120 day commenting period; 60 days of comments from companies and the public, and then 6…

Adding to the confusion, the NYT has an article up right now which seems to report the opposite.

To quote from the NYT article lede: "WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on Thursday to invite public comment on a set of proposed rules aimed at guaranteeing an open Internet, prohibiting high-speed Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through their pipes. "

Am I reading this wrong or does that seem to say the opposite of what WaPo is saying?

Post reply on HN