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

FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 437 posts

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

#381

Post by lsaferite »

acdha wrote: post #376
cheald wrote: post #323

So, will this make it illegal for GoGo to block streaming video sites on airplanes during domestic flights? 200 people trying to stream Netflix over a satellite downlink? That should be a riot .

> So, will this make it illegal for GoGo to block streaming video sites on airplanes during domestic flights? It should allow them to be consistent about it and rate-limit everyone evenly, which would have the same effect. The really interesting question would be what happens with their on-plan video systems – my understanding is that they cache a selection of videos on the plane which are pre-seeded to avoid cloggin…

Hah, why not have a Netflix OpenConnect box on the plane then? That would be... interesting.

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

#382

Post by lsaferite »

someITguyWI wrote: post #281

Careful here boys and girls. Words matter, and the word to focus on in his statement is "lawful" content and services. What exactly is defined as lawful? Is porn lawful? What about torrents to pirated software? What about stuff the government just doesn't like. This same paragraph could be read in China and be just as accurate, but China has a very different definition of "lawful content and services".

I would imagine it means anything that is not legislated to be unlawful.

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

#383

Post by acdha »

lsaferite wrote: post #381
acdha wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, will this make it illegal for GoGo to block streaming video sites on airplanes during domestic flights? It should allow them to be consistent about it and rate-limit everyone evenly, which would have the same effect. The really interesting question would be what happens with their on-plan video systems – my understanding is that they cache a selection of videos on the plane which are pre-seeded to avoid cloggin…

Hah, why not have a Netflix OpenConnect box on the plane then? That would be... interesting.

It just seems like the cache hit rates would be dismal if it had to handle so many content providers and such a wide range of content, even if you had some Hollywood-doomed way for e.g. Netflix and Hulu to use the same cached MP4 for titles which they both offer.

I don't see how that could work without some protocol where e.g. Netflix, et al. could preload content in advance and how could that work – voting at the gate, only being able to see the top n most-popular on ?

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

#384

Post by nullrouted »

gergles wrote: post #361
nullrouted wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You answered your own question, the balanced traffic. I don't agree with it either but I'm just stating the facts. However I'm not sure where you get the 99% or anything like that. If I'm Verizon and I own the last mile to the eyeballs you want then I can set my policies to benefit me, which they have. However they aren't throttling and Title II will do nothing about the peering issue or the policies they have set ar…

That's not at all true. Title II means that peering pricing and agreements now fall under the FCC's purview for "reasonableness", which means that the FCC can step in at some future point and make Verizon knock this shit off.

Can you show where this would be true at all?

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

#385

Post by eggnet »

pyre wrote: post #141
gnoway wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder about that too. In my mind at least, there is a distinction between requiring neutral treatment of traffic routing through a network and requiring an operator to let a competitor hook up their equipment in your facilities and sell a competitive service using infrastructure you laid. The latter IMO is a lot less fair, even though my personal experience is that I had more choices for service when it was done w…

The latter makes sense for DSL, but most of the cable monopolies are not government-granted at the Federal level. Some localities have a cable monopoly, but the local government is responsible for that. Yes, the cable companies have gotten government hand-outs to build out infrastructure, but teasing apart which of that was public and private money (and therefore which would be 'fair' to force open) would be a nightm…

Many things that are worth doing are difficult. This is one of them.

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

#386

Post by gergles »

nullrouted wrote: post #384
gergles wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not at all true. Title II means that peering pricing and agreements now fall under the FCC's purview for "reasonableness", which means that the FCC can step in at some future point and make Verizon knock this shit off.

Can you show where this would be true at all?

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015... , page 3, first paragraph.

Thanks for the downvote.

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

#387

Post by pyre »

dragonwriter wrote: post #339
pyre wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content, so should the Uber site be shutdown or should they just be going after Uber via the courts (where a judge could order Uber to suspend operations)? I was stating that you could see city government trying to get the Uber site blocked to local ISP customers as a way to side-step the court system.

> Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content If Uber's service is illegal, the content the site is delivering, insofar as it is solicitation to engage in an illegal exchange, may also be illegal.

This sounds like trying to make it illegal for Uber to own a telephone number because they are operating an illegal taxi service. It doesn't make sense. Go after the company in court, don't attempt to find ways around the court system.

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

#388

Post by slowmovintarget »

dragonwriter wrote: post #204
metaphorm wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> i don't think this issue breaks along strictly D vs. R party lines. There's a little bit of fuzzing on the boundaries, but this issue has been the focus of lots of legislative action since it first became a controversy, and its pretty consistently been a large majority of Republicans opposing FCC action for neutrality and neutrality generally. And, over the years, the partisan alignment has increasingly solidified.

The Republicans were right to oppose FCC action for "neutrality" when what it really meant (at the time) was the ability to monitor and censor conservative blogs.

The recent moves have been lobbyist-inspired, though. Sad.

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

#389

Post by Alupis »

dragonwriter wrote: post #341
Alupis wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is neither the GOP nor the DEM get to decide what net neutrality policy is... that is the FCC's job now that congress has given them that power. This isn't a party thing... let's not try to make it one.

> The point is neither the GOP nor the DEM get to decide what net neutrality policy is... that is the FCC's job The members of the FCC are Democratic and Republican political appointees. > This isn't a party thing... Every FCC vote on Open Internet ("net neutrality") rules for the last several years has had a 3-2 divide on party lines (Democrats for Open Internet regs, Republicans against). How is it not a party thin…

> The members of the FCC are Democratic and Republican political appointees.

And so are Supreme Court Justices. Once appointed, some future President can't just remove them because he/she disagrees. The President isn't a king.

It's not a party thing. Stop trying to make it one.

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

#390

Post by dreamdu5t »

usefulcat wrote: post #368
alexryan wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big mistake. Government regulation kills innovation. Do you really want the technology sector to end up looking like the healthcare system or the state run education system? Everything government touches turns to crap. To believe that government regulation with make anything better is not very intelligent.

> Everything government touches turns to crap. By that extremely simplistic logic, we should have no laws at all.

By that logic, laws would be created by a free market in law (polycentric court system).
Post reply on HN