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

251–260 of 343 posts

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#251

Post by grandalf »

politician wrote: post #113
grandalf wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why in the earth there is a need for slow/fast lanes and data caps? It's just an alternate way of pricing the service. You could ask similar questions about a lot of industries: - Why does Github charge the way it does and not just price the service per megabyte of data stored or per commit, etc? - Why do fast food restaurants offer free soft drink refills for $0.99 but not offer a single fill for $0.50? - Why do r…

- Why does the water supplied to my home come in clear and polluted varieties? - Why does the electricity supplied to my office come in normal power and brown power versions? Oh, wait.

Are you making the argument that the existing QoS for power and water are both optimal? If so, for whom are they optimal?

Many people purchase bottled drinking water via delivery service b/c they deem the quality of tap water unacceptable for consumption.

Many people invest in UPS units, backup generators, etc. b/c they deem the reliability of power from the grid unacceptable.

Imagine if the power grid had an additional 9 of reliability -- it would save hospitals tens of millions of dollars on redundant power backup systems, significantly reducing the cost of healthcare. From this vantage-point, the poor quality of grid power is subsidized by those who need life support systems... this seems horribly unfair.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#252

Post by pdonis »

gph wrote: post #243
rayiner wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. When capital investment into broadband is set by vote, do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment?

>do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment? I'll be accepting of it. At least we get the end results of our own failure to persuade the public or politicians. As it is our fate is left to 'market forces'. Market forces have been undeniably screwing us for the better part of a decade. And it's looking like they want more for less in the future.

> Market forces have been undeniably screwing us for the better part of a decade.

Excuse me? What's been screwing us in broadband is precisely that market forces are not operating, because local governments have been giving sweetheart deals to particular providers.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#253

Post by tabel »

ColinDabritz wrote: post #193
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…

"Comcast has to deliver all this data to tens of millions of customers spread out around the nation." Yes, this is a definition of an ISP. The ISP transmits requests from users to the internet, and the requested data back to the users. This is the product that Comcast already provides and charges their users for. The users ask for internet content, the ISP (Comcast) is responsible for delivering it. If the users are…

> The critical point here is that it is a relationship only between the ISP (Comcast) and the end user, and the content providers aren't involved.

Isn't comcast also a content provider? They provide cable TV services and own a TV network and a film studio.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#254

Post by opendais »

gph wrote: post #224
rayiner wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really do not want broadband classified under Title II. You will get the war you want, but it will be a war everyone loses. Why do you think DSL is such a ghetto? It's because it's subject to a higher level of regulations, and nobody wants to invest money in such a highly-regulated industry: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Veriz... . Classifying cable broadband under Title II will definitel…

Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. BTW that article showing how much capital they spent doesn't say what they actually spent that money on. My bet is most of it went to their cellular networks and other business interests. Their own data shows broadband investment has fallen[1]. Only 12 billion in the last 4 years. S…

Nationalizing the infrastructure isn't viable in the US for a host of reasons. Politics. The culture of poor stewardship of the commons in the US. Etc.

They need to be force all ISPs to act as common carriers.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#255

Post by julien_c »

briandear wrote: post #247
rayiner wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. When capital investment into broadband is set by vote, do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment?

Nationalizing anything nearly always leads to lower quality. Compare the toll roads in France to the "free" autobahns in Germany. The French toll routes are far better maintained. Another case is health care, compare an NHS experience with a hip replacement in the UK with a hip replacement in France (or the US.) In the UK, the waiting list is measured in 6+ months, while in the US or France, it is almost immediate. F…

Hip replacement is most definitely nationalized in France.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#256

Post by pdonis »

twoodfin wrote: post #83
natdempk wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically the answer to this is yes. If Comcast spends all of this money to upgrade their network and the cost to the end user goes up for the better service, then there are really no problems here. That's basically how a market should work. That plan would actually encourage them to upgrade their networks over time and install things like fiber to meet the new demands of customers, instead of providing poor service…

The problem is that a network that can stream 20Mbit continuously to every customer (so they always can get the "advertised" bandwidth) would be absurdly expensive, and rates would have to go up accordingly. Why should someone who doesn't consume Netflix pay for this? Why should Comcast be afraid to sell you a 100MBit "bursty" connection (essentially the same kind of service they actually advertise now) because they'…

> Why should Comcast be afraid to sell you a 100MBit "bursty" connection (essentially the same kind of service they actually advertise now) because they'd be 'forced' to potentially have the capacity to serve 100MBit to every subscriber when Netflix goes to 8K-h.269 or what-have-you?

Who would be "forcing" them to do this? In a sane world they'd already be selling these two types of services as two types of service--you either choose the "bursty" option or you choose the (more expensive) "streaming" option. Then they would know how to provision for each type of user, and they could price each option based on the capabilities of their infrastructure.

Of course, what would happen then, if you are correct, is that the absurdly high price of the "streaming" option would drive their customers to alternative providers wherever possible--or they would be forced to actually spend that extra money on infrastructure. So basically they are trying to obfuscate the issue because actually serving their customers' needs is way too much like work.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#257

Post by briandear »

gph wrote: post #225
IanDrake wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something most people don't seem to get. Government control == stagnation.

In America. Looks like most of Europe doesn't have this problem...

Au contraire. Europe has enormous problems. In places like France, cellular service has been getting faster and cheaper because of competition. For example, Free joined the "big three" in France for cell service and suddenly prices have fallen and quality has greatly improved compared the the days when France Telecom controlled everything. That's the opposite of your theory that nationalization "improves" things.

Mexico is another outstanding example of what happens when you deregulate telecoms. When Carlos Slim had his nationally-endorsed monopoly with TelCel/TelMex, prices were exceptionally high however, once his guaranteed monopoly period expired and other companies could begin to compete, the prices dropped dramatically. Although Slim's company has a huge 10 year head start over other companies in terms of infrastructure -- so the monopoly effects are still prevalent. For example, a cell plan that costs me $100 in the US, costs me over $125 in Mexico. In terms of purchasing power, that's a massively expensive difference, considering many other things in Mexico are substantially less expensive than the US -- except electricity and telcoms, which are far more expensive because of de facto and de jure nationalization.

There's a perception that "Europe is better" that seems to be almost a stereotype. I happen to live in Avignon and have a close-up view of things that are better in Europe versus the US and some things ARE better, but there is a tradeoff. Avignon has 20% unemployment for example. It has traditionally been very expensive to start a business in France as well. The labor rules and bureaucracy makes it exceptionally difficult to hire and fire employees. Public transport in Europe isn't universally better than the US. Most people only visit places like Paris, Berlin, London, etc. However, when compared to New York, Chicago and San Francisco, europe's transport isn't that much better. Spend a few minutes in the Paris CDG airport and compare that to JFK.. not much difference. In the less famous cities and regions of Europe, public transport consists of possibly a train station and some buses. When I was in Wilstedt, German (near Hamburg) there was a bus, but it was so infrequent that it was useless. In Provence, the big cities have public transport, but if you're in Salon de Provence, there isn't much. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else, but the rose-colored view of Europe is often not based in reality, but on an idealized view. La vie en rose to be sure.

The "Better in Europe" meme isn't always true. Ask some of the people actually running businesses in France. Here's an interview with a French CEO that's interesting. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101608867

And then you have this nonsense:

http://www.france24.com/en/20130501-france-minister-montebou...

(A French Minister blocked the sale of Dailymotion to Yahoo.)

I am not an expert on Europe (or anything really,) however I did have to say something about the "Europe is better" implication.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#258

Post by rayiner »

pdonis wrote: post #252
gph wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment? I'll be accepting of it. At least we get the end results of our own failure to persuade the public or politicians. As it is our fate is left to 'market forces'. Market forces have been undeniably screwing us for the better part of a decade. And it's looking like they want more for less in the future.

> Market forces have been undeniably screwing us for the better part of a decade. Excuse me? What's been screwing us in broadband is precisely that market forces are not operating, because local governments have been giving sweetheart deals to particular providers.

I suggest you read some of these agreements, they're usually online. Here's the one for my town: http://www.wilmingtonde.gov/docs/1320/3716Rev1.pdf. These aren't sweetheart deals. Generally, they extract millions of dollars for tangentially-related municipal programs, and then have build-out requirements forcing you to serve areas above a certain density even if you can't sign up enough customers to make it profitable. Basically, the terms are unattractive enough such that only the big de-facto monopolies are willing to take the deal.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#259

Post by throwawayFCC »

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…

This comment is misleading. Actual Administrative Law practitioner here. The commissioners basically approved Tom Wheeler's plan, and there's no meaningful recourse for the path ahead. Saying that something is "on the table" ignores the realities of promulgating new regulations. Are they going to rewrite the regulations? No way. It's not how the process works. There's no incentive for changing the rules -- because they'd need to have ANOTHER rulemaking after this one for the specific language. That would take YEARS AND YEARS. The only illusorily democratic process left for THIS NPRM is for the FCC to read your comments and respond to them in a detailed, written method. If they fail to implement that process (i.e., to read stuff, write down that they read the stuff, and write sophistry in response), the courts can tell them to go back and read them again and address the comments. But the FCC has the authority to move forward on that, and you can't vote them out of office.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#260

Post by pdonis »

mwsherman wrote: post #152
moultano wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CDNs increase the overall capacity of the network by caching content closer to its destination. This benefits everyone, even the traffic that is not cached by the CDN because it reduces congestion for everyone. The behavior we are worried about is zero sum (where some packets get prioritized and others lose out), or even negative sum (where some packets get held for ransom.)

That’s true, and it’s also true when Netflix buys a dedicated circuit to Comcast. Their traffic is no longer going over the other circuits. Not saying it’s the right thing to do, but that it’s functionally the same. It’s also functionally the same to say that any traffic not on the CDN is in a slow lane or being held ransom, in the sense that it will be congested until the publisher pays.

> It’s also functionally the same to say that any traffic not on the CDN is in a slow lane or being held ransom

You're confusing routes with endpoints. CDNs are endpoints--multiple endpoints containing the same data so that there is a much higher probability of having an endpoint close to any given user. The owner of the data has to do all the work of getting multiple copies of the data placed at all those endpoints, making sure they're all in sync, etc. But the data traveling from endpoint to endpoint--from the nearest CDN node to the user--is not privileged over any other data.

What the net neutrality debate is about is the ISPs wanting to control routes--i.e., to be able to say that some data traveling over a given route from one endpoint to another endpoint gets to travel faster than other data traveling over the same route. CDNs don't do that.

What Netflix bought from Comcast is sort of in between. It's like a CDN in that Netflix still has to do the work of placing multiple copies of their content at different endpoints in different locations; but it's also like the ISP route control scheme in that Netflix' data gets a privileged route from their endpoints to Comcast users, a route that non-Netflix data from endpoints that are similarly situated does not get, because non-Netflix data can't travel through the special connection points that Netflix now has with Comcast. Normal CDNs don't do that either.

Post reply on HN