FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#271

Post by ikeboy » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:10 PM UTC

orthecreedence wrote: post #266

ikeboy wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know in my area there's more than one. >And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience. In a free market, this fact means that people don't care enough about their experience. If they cared enough, they would choose based on that, instead of on price. >They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections.…

Free market is great if there are problems to solve and they require creative solutions. When an optimal solution is found, competition based on that one aspect of the market doesn't make sense anymore. In this case, I truly believe net neutrality is an optimal solution for consumers. The goal of society is not to make things easier on companies, the goal is to advance society as a whole. Freedom of speech and expres…

Would you support the following proposal? I would:

The FCC allows companies to throttle whatever they want, but requires all the data to be provided publicly, and they make press releases every so often specifying which companies throttle and which don't. That would solve your not knowing problem.

In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem of choices. You also rule out the obvious loophole of having multiple related companies operating under different brands to get around this.

How many of your problems could be solved by this? What problems would still remain?

(Oh, and is there any chance of getting people to support anything this complicated? No.)

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#272

Post by gordjw » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:12 PM UTC

ep103 wrote: post #262

tootie wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have this weird feeling that this whole drama was a long con by Obama and Wheeler to tease out as much vocal support as possible by playing the villain. Like Wheeler was a heel in professional wrestling. They put out a shitty proposal that the ISPs would love just to show them how strong public opposition would be so they'd be perfectly positioned to go full neutrality and claim a public mandate.

If that was the case, then they would have prepared their servers to actually handle the load. As it stands, we know they lost millions of records of input

And that focused the public's attention even more.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#273

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:13 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #271

orthecreedence wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free market is great if there are problems to solve and they require creative solutions. When an optimal solution is found, competition based on that one aspect of the market doesn't make sense anymore. In this case, I truly believe net neutrality is an optimal solution for consumers. The goal of society is not to make things easier on companies, the goal is to advance society as a whole. Freedom of speech and expres…

Would you support the following proposal? I would: The FCC allows companies to throttle whatever they want, but requires all the data to be provided publicly, and they make press releases every so often specifying which companies throttle and which don't. That would solve your not knowing problem. In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem…

> What problems would still remain?

Among others, a limited, but greater than one, number of providers in an area all trying to push their own, e.g., video service and so all blocking/throttling Netflix and other competing video services.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#274

Post by explorigin » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:18 PM UTC

datawhoring wrote: post #261

frostirosti wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tom Wheeler has really outdone himself with this announcement. It'll apply to mobile networks as well! Turns out this dingo knows how to stand up for what's right! I know it's early but this is a great step forward.

agreed. this level of f-u to the whims of wealthy individuals and their entrenched corporations is unheard of. i work for a smaller cable company and it has been getting very deep lately. sad thing is management doesn't seem to get that the grunts don't care. we never profit from the monopolies. every year we get some bs excuse why we won't be getting a raise this year even though reading the quarterly earnings and k…

Did you read the article?

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#275

Post by wtallis » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:18 PM UTC

nullrouted wrote: post #216

acomar wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) The problem this fixes is largely non-existent today. The threat of fast and slow-lanes is one I've yet to experience. Verizon is already throttling Youtube and Netflix traffic because the content providers refuse to pay extra for normal delivery. > 2) Opening the door for more internet regulation seems like a bad idea. At first, things may go swimmingly, but I suspect regulatory capture will creep up on this in…

I just want to reply to your first point. Verizon is not "throttling" traffic to youtube/netflix, it is just allowing peering links to be saturated because the providers are out of compliance with their peering rules. You can read their peering rules here: http://www.verizonenterprise.com/terms/peering/ We can argue that it is just semantics but it is more in-depth than "throttling."

It's entirely Verizon's fault that the traffic exchange ratio is so skewed, because none of their customers are able to maintain a 1.8:1 download:upload ratio except by not using most of the download bandwidth they're paying for. Verizon's trying to hold on to a peering agreement appropriate for tier 1 transit providers when they're mostly a residential ISP now.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#276

Post by mrschwabe » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:19 PM UTC

ep103 wrote: post #139

evanb wrote: post #45

I violated Responsible Reading Of The Internet Rule #1 and accidentally looked at the comments. I am having a hard time reconciling the vehement anti-net-neutrality anti-government hair-on-fire screaming there with the reasoned discussion and general attitude here---I would have thought the majority of readers of Wired would be of similar mind to HN readers.

large news websites are targeted by marketing firms with shell accounts in an effort to slant a story. Hacker News is still very much under the radar, and doesn't warrant that level of manipulation (as much) yet.

It's not just marketing firms.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula...

Perhaps we should take a more subjective look at comments on Hacker News and ask ourselves if a genuine 'hacker' (by PG definition or otherwise) would applaud new regulations for the internet.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#277

Post by ikeboy » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:27 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #273

ikeboy wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you support the following proposal? I would: The FCC allows companies to throttle whatever they want, but requires all the data to be provided publicly, and they make press releases every so often specifying which companies throttle and which don't. That would solve your not knowing problem. In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem…

> What problems would still remain? Among others, a limited, but greater than one, number of providers in an area all trying to push their own, e.g., video service and so all blocking/throttling Netflix and other competing video services.

Interesting you mention Netflix; you may find these informative. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netfl... http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-a...

I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where Netflix is completely inaccessible or heavily throttled in an area and the public outcry can't stop it. The problems Netflix complained about were fixed by the free market without any NN rules.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#278

Post by Forbo » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:32 PM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #228

coldpie wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really impressed with Wheeler. When he was nominated, all the news was about how he was a lobbyist for the cable companies, and it was a perfect example of cronyism. But he's really been knocking it out of the park. Aggressive on net neutrality, redefining broadband, trying to restore municipal Internet. I'm very glad to have been wrong about my initial impressions.

"Only Nixon could go to China." - Vulcan proverb

For anyone who, like me, is/was not familiar with this phrase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_goes_to_China

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#279

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:35 PM UTC

nullrouted wrote: post #216

acomar wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) The problem this fixes is largely non-existent today. The threat of fast and slow-lanes is one I've yet to experience. Verizon is already throttling Youtube and Netflix traffic because the content providers refuse to pay extra for normal delivery. > 2) Opening the door for more internet regulation seems like a bad idea. At first, things may go swimmingly, but I suspect regulatory capture will creep up on this in…

I just want to reply to your first point. Verizon is not "throttling" traffic to youtube/netflix, it is just allowing peering links to be saturated because the providers are out of compliance with their peering rules. You can read their peering rules here: http://www.verizonenterprise.com/terms/peering/ We can argue that it is just semantics but it is more in-depth than "throttling."

Which part are they out of compliance with?

The requirement that traffic be balanced is nonsensical. In a logical sense, all packets in a connection should be 'billed' to the initiator. Raw data rates are a terrible proxy for this, and shouldn't be used at all. So in the case of Netflix, Verizon is responsible for about 99% of the traffic and the only party that should even think about charging for the interconnect is Netflix.

Is there anything else that's a problem?

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#280

Post by ejain » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 8:39 PM UTC

metaphorm wrote: post #197

obsurveyor wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress can gut FCC's power to decide these things though, that's what the Republicans want.

1. its not clear that that's what a congressional majority wants. there is a faction of congress that is aligned with ISPs that wants that, but there is also a large faction of congress aligned differently. i don't think this issue breaks along strictly D vs. R party lines. 2. an act of congress that diminishes the authority of the FCC would have to be signed by Obama, which he will not do. there is no faction in con…

Congress is "pro-fundraising". Leaving this matter to the FCC, or issuing clear legislation for or against Net Neutrality isn't as conducive to future fundraising as muddled legislation is...