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

Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

juliareda.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 181 posts

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#111

Post by WilliamDhalgren »

calgoo wrote: post #106
WilliamDhalgren wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder even about that, given that it's stated that it can be done only under exceptional and temporary conditions of congestion. The regulator should probably act if it were the general practice instead. But yeah, the public will need to stay vigilant over how national regulators implement this ruling case by case.

From my understanding it looks more like: "We are streaming the Olympics and its transferring 2TB/s of data, we need to route this differently!". But then again, loopholes are loopholes, and it will be just a matter of time until it will be abused.

Sry, could you clarify, what looks more like rerouting a large download?? Anyhow, allowing traffic shaping in congestion control is not a network neutrality loophole in itself, but ofc any regulation depends on the regulator.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#112

Post by IMRelentless1 »

WilliamDhalgren wrote: post #74
soci wrote: post #63

As always, devil is in the details. If you look at the fine print in the published "Guidelines for implementing Net Neutratily" [1] linked in the article you will see that there are 3 exceptions to the rule (a,b,c). Being "c" the one that should fear us most: EXCEPTIONS a) "comply with Union legislative acts (...) -> meaning that a court order can change Net Neutrality, hmmm ok. b) preserve the integrity and security…

A legislative act is not an act of the court - that'd be a judicial act - but of the parliament ie a law; that's the legislative body. Ofc a regulation needs to comply with laws; how else is a legal state supposed to work? And afaik traffic shaping done in a content-neutral way is network neutral; for it favors no particular provider. "Provided that equivalent categories of traffic are treated equally" is quite limit…

any thoughts on Obama handing over the DNS directory to the UN on Oct. 1st?

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#113

Post by IMRelentless1 »

WilliamDhalgren wrote: post #74
soci wrote: post #63

As always, devil is in the details. If you look at the fine print in the published "Guidelines for implementing Net Neutratily" [1] linked in the article you will see that there are 3 exceptions to the rule (a,b,c). Being "c" the one that should fear us most: EXCEPTIONS a) "comply with Union legislative acts (...) -> meaning that a court order can change Net Neutrality, hmmm ok. b) preserve the integrity and security…

A legislative act is not an act of the court - that'd be a judicial act - but of the parliament ie a law; that's the legislative body. Ofc a regulation needs to comply with laws; how else is a legal state supposed to work? And afaik traffic shaping done in a content-neutral way is network neutral; for it favors no particular provider. "Provided that equivalent categories of traffic are treated equally" is quite limit…

any thoughts on Obama handing over the DNS directory to the UN on Oct. 1st?

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#114

Post by mseebach »

nordify wrote: post #97
mseebach wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transit isn't everything you're paying for. Your local street cabinet isn't kitted out like your local datacentre and thus prices won't be the same.

No, but everything that's not transit is a fixed cost and thus as long as the internal network is properly designed and implemented, only transit costs matter. The rest (i.e. the fixed costs) will be covered by the monthly subscription fee.

It is very expensive fixed cost that the customers need to pay the amortisation of. Also, it's only fixed as long as it's never maintained or until it needs to be upgraded. You're not going to be satisfied with 25mbit a few years from now.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#115

Post by nordify »

rhino369 wrote: post #105
nordify wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but everything that's not transit is a fixed cost and thus as long as the internal network is properly designed and implemented, only transit costs matter. The rest (i.e. the fixed costs) will be covered by the monthly subscription fee.

It would take a massive upgrade to most ISP internal networks to allow each home to use 25 mbit at the same time. There are bottlenecks that would have to replaced.

True, but it would still be a fixed cost to upgrade.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#116

Post by whybroke »

hueving wrote: post #66
whybroke wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intriguing but 3 questions: How could shifting more towards Ordoliberalism (=government regulation to maximize competition plus a social safety net) be a bad thing? Quality of life is rather high in Germany after all. Is there in fact evidence that unemployment is intentionally maintained in order to suppress inflation? Even if your assertions are true, how would Brexit address any of these things and generally how w…

Unification is counter-productive if you think that the goals of the group are bad.

Which goals would those be? An efficient tariff free zone? A larger area for individual opportunity? A reasonable social safety net? Greater power on the global stage? Protection for human rights?

Or is the objection merely to some wholly imaginary threat to the purity of the anglo-saxon race and culture and an unthinking and instantaneous embracing of anything nationalist and right leaning?

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#117

Post by posterboy »

smsm42 wrote: post #77
headmelted wrote: post #30

It encourages me to see that the European court at least has some people on it that seem to understand that net neutrality is in fact a human rights issue. And this is why Brexit is so heart-breaking. I'm surrounded by people in my personal life who think it's a fantastic idea, but they're not the most... informed? Likewise for local politicians. (Side note to my rant: I have this theory that the rise of the iPhone,…

> Yes, I would rather have decisions made by people in Brussels that understand what they're doing. That requires having people in Brussels who understand what they're doing - at least better than local politicians. But I'm not sure how exactly you ensure that. If we assume you are right that the people around you (excepting you, of course) are woefully misinformed and so are local politicians, where would the enligh…

> It is a great delusion that democratic mechanisms and limited federalized government are the way to put the best people on top and manage the system most efficiently

That is not that important because the people on top can only prescribe, the population has to substantiate the plans. Therefore it is important that the population can be informed beforehand to agree with the plans.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#118

Post by nordify »

mseebach wrote: post #114
nordify wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but everything that's not transit is a fixed cost and thus as long as the internal network is properly designed and implemented, only transit costs matter. The rest (i.e. the fixed costs) will be covered by the monthly subscription fee.

It is very expensive fixed cost that the customers need to pay the amortisation of. Also, it's only fixed as long as it's never maintained or until it needs to be upgraded. You're not going to be satisfied with 25mbit a few years from now.

Maintenance is a percentage of the fixed costs. Upgrades replace old equipment as they have been paid off and decommissioned, so just another fixed cost that replaces the old fixed cost.

So fixed costs all around.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#119

Post by hx87 »

smsm42 wrote: post #83
hx87 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's "progress" when the larger bureaucracy is harder to regulatorily capture, if only because in larger jurisdictions there are more competitors.

> larger bureaucracy is harder to regulatorily capture The example of US federal government does not exactly support this point.

It does when you compare it to state and municipal governments.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#120

Post by ZenoArrow »

freshflowers wrote: post #100
headmelted wrote: post #30

It encourages me to see that the European court at least has some people on it that seem to understand that net neutrality is in fact a human rights issue. And this is why Brexit is so heart-breaking. I'm surrounded by people in my personal life who think it's a fantastic idea, but they're not the most... informed? Likewise for local politicians. (Side note to my rant: I have this theory that the rise of the iPhone,…

Ironically, the same issue is exactly why I, as a citizen of the Netherlands, support leaving the EU. Because even at this point, Net Neutrality is still less well protected by the EU than it was under our own national legislation. I cannot in all good conscience support a union that has the power to undermine our civil rights. If Brits don't want those civil rights, that's their choice. Brussels is not a force for g…

I agree with your general sentiment, but wonder where you get the idea that Britain is somewhat backward when it comes to civil rights. Whilst challenges to civil rights will continue to exist and be resisted, it should be noted that the European Convention on Human Rights was influenced by the UK's approach to civil rights: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human...

If you have concrete examples of poor civil rights in the UK, by all means share them, I'm not pretending things are perfect here, and would be happy to get a better grasp of where things could be improved.

Post reply on HN