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

FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 322 posts

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#111

Post by and0 »

subverter wrote: post #94
and0 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This ^ I say this every time and no one has ever been able to answer: how is a simple "don't prioritize traffic" some kind of competition-killing regulation, and how would removing it actually create competition anyway?

I think it's because it removes an entire vector that these companies can compete on. They can compete on price, support, coverage, etc. – but service-wise, they all have to be the same. They can't differentiate themselves, which is important to entice entrepreneurs to get into the business.

Sounds like a utility to me!

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#112

Post by massysett »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #90
and0 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This ^ I say this every time and no one has ever been able to answer: how is a simple "don't prioritize traffic" some kind of competition-killing regulation, and how would removing it actually create competition anyway?

There is a case to be had for how vertical-integration makes businesses more efficient and means there can be some cost-savings for consumers (e.g. if Comcast zero-rated their own streaming video service and included it in their customers' cable Internet fees then consumers would save $10/mo they wouldn't be paying to Netflix - in much the same way Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer meant no-one pays for Netsc…

As a NN opponent, you have somewhat captured my viewpoint.

Mostly I think NN is fighting the last war. NN proponents continually assert there is no competition for wired Internet and, therefore, it must be regulated. I think looking at wired Internet defines much too narrow a market. As wireless proliferates, it will become increasingly important, and competition in wireless is alive and well. The recent reignition of wars over "unlimited" data underscores this.

I am reminded of the zeal to regulate or break up Microsoft. I was one of those zealots. Of course, then mobile changed everything, and now it doesn't matter so much that Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows PCs.

If I were Comcast I'd be scared, and legitimately so. The wireless players have access to most American consumers. Each cable operator only has access to the homes that get its wire--a small fraction of the market available to a wireless company. We're better off with vibrant cable operators who can compete with wireless however they see best. If that means zero rating or non-neutral networks, OK.

Further, I am struck by the arrogance of the belief that the government knows best how to regulate this market. Looking back I think it's absurd that I wanted government to break MS into "browser co." and "OS co." The market took care of this problem and now Windows users proactively install Chrome. I think that in a few short years, the drive to regulate the Internet will look like similar folly.

So in short I see no problem here to solve and I do not think government should get involved.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#113

Post by kelnos »

grandalf wrote: post #65
wtallis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For anything other than a dedicated "business class" circuit with hard performance guarantees, speculation and shaping is involved in delivering the end product. The alternative to a connection with a SLA guarantee is a best effort connection, not discriminatory traffic shaping. Underprovisioning part of your network doesn't require you to show favoritism to certain traffic—the normal way to cope with larger than e…

> just start dropping packets where there's congestion Aside from being normal, do you think this is preferable because it is fair? I think of QoS as a way of allowing more types of SLA to exist. Maybe Youtube makes a deal with T-Mobile to keep videos playing longer (before packets start dropping) in exchange for money. This money might allow T-Mobile to invest in other parts of its infrastructure. Isn't any backbone…

> Maybe Youtube makes a deal with T-Mobile to keep videos playing longer (before packets start dropping) in exchange for money. This money might allow T-Mobile to invest in other parts of its infrastructure.

That half of it isn't the problem, and I doubt anyone would argue against reasonable things that make it easier for a provider to increase their network capacity.

The problem is what it does to YouTube's competitors: they now suffer because YT can afford to ask T-Mobile to make their traffic more important.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#114

Post by noxToken »

scarface74 wrote: post #98
wtallis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't more competition among providers what we want? Only at some levels. Physical last-mile connectivity is a natural monopoly; we shouldn't want more than one trench along each driveway. If an ISP has a local monopoly that only covers one city rather than a whole state, that doesn't change the dynamics of what's fair to their users.

I would think that any many decently populated areas, it's at least a "duopoly". You would have the cable company and the phone company competing. I have a choice between Comcast and AT&T.

Same as the other child comment. Every locale I've been to has had at least 3 choices with an occasional 4th: a cable company, a phone company, and a satellite company. The 4th is typically a very small, local ISP.

The cable company has always had the most bang for the buck. It's something like 60Mb down at about $1/Mb. The phone company is the underdog that gets you from under the thumb of the cable company at a lower speed. It's something like 25Mb down at about $1.50/Mb. Satellites are basically a last resort. I can't recall speeds, but it's abysmally slow at a high price. That's nothing new though.

The local ISP is something that I've always wanted to go with, but they never have the speeds. It's always some form of ADSL capped at around ~15Mb down and ~1.4Mb up somewhere between $1 to $1.50/Mb down.

Your two real choices are cable or phone company, and if you go with the phone company, you pay more for less while still under the stranglehold of a large carrier.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#115

Post by 1_2__3 »

subverter wrote: post #102
fragmede wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the way, every time I've noticed the FCC has come up on HN in the recent past, an aged account has always posted a pro Trump's FCC comment with an argument tweaked for HN's biases, as seen above, and if that is the only comment you read in the thread, you'd falsely conclude that they're right and believe that Ajit Pai's version of the FCC will be better for business than Tom Wheeler's. Ajit Pai's FCC will be bette…

I'm certainly not sitting here agreeing with everything Pai's FCC has or will do, nor am I pro-Trump (not that it matters). My belief is their decisions will be a mixed bag in the long term. What I've noticed is that almost every FCC decision since Pai took over has been spun as weakening net neutrality, which I think is incorrect and unfair.

In what way do you expect it to be a "mixed bag"? What are the positive parts? You seem to claim smaller ISPs will benefit, but we've already got a dearth of small ISPs in the US and I don't see the FCCs decisions likely leading to more of them, as other commenters have pointed out. So what, specifically, will be better? "Friendlier" to businesses is as much nonsense as words like "wellness" to people, so I'm looking for actual, real-world positive things.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#116

Post by smnscu »

guelo wrote: post #50

I hate these types of articles that provide extensive quotes and even a screenshot of part of the pdf, but refuse to link to the actual documents. It's probably an advertising thing where they don't want people to leave the site. The actual statements are available here https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-addresses-unnecessary-accou...

... and also plenty of links to their own articles!

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#117

Post by __jal »

jerkstate wrote: post #16

Does anyone with a strong understanding of internetworking, peering and transit contract negotiation actually believe that "net neutrality" is possible? traffic shaping of saturated links seems like a necessary outcome to not undermine the smaller users (i.e. low bandwidth communications) that are impacted by heavy users (i.e. video streaming) if two peering parties can't come to terms on cost sharing for link upgrad…

Does anyone with a strong understanding of internetworking, peering and transit not see the difference between QOS for technical reasons and things like zero rating?

It seems a lot of people are invested in muddying the difference.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#118

Post by grandalf »

kelnos wrote: post #113
grandalf wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just start dropping packets where there's congestion Aside from being normal, do you think this is preferable because it is fair? I think of QoS as a way of allowing more types of SLA to exist. Maybe Youtube makes a deal with T-Mobile to keep videos playing longer (before packets start dropping) in exchange for money. This money might allow T-Mobile to invest in other parts of its infrastructure. Isn't any backbone…

> Maybe Youtube makes a deal with T-Mobile to keep videos playing longer (before packets start dropping) in exchange for money. This money might allow T-Mobile to invest in other parts of its infrastructure. That half of it isn't the problem, and I doubt anyone would argue against reasonable things that make it easier for a provider to increase their network capacity. The problem is what it does to YouTube's competit…

> The problem is what it does to YouTube's competitors: they now suffer because YT can afford to ask T-Mobile to make their traffic more important.

But simply by virtue of YouTube's market share, an economic incentive exists to install backbone links that help route YouTube's traffic (as opposed to others'). In other words, if two backbone links might be installed, the one whose outcome makes access to Youtube more reliable is more likely to be installed than one that makes unknown startup's service more reliable.

In other words, network topology adapts to traffic demand (albeit more slowly than traffic shaping).

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#119

Post by wtallis »

grandalf wrote: post #65
wtallis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For anything other than a dedicated "business class" circuit with hard performance guarantees, speculation and shaping is involved in delivering the end product. The alternative to a connection with a SLA guarantee is a best effort connection, not discriminatory traffic shaping. Underprovisioning part of your network doesn't require you to show favoritism to certain traffic—the normal way to cope with larger than e…

> just start dropping packets where there's congestion Aside from being normal, do you think this is preferable because it is fair? I think of QoS as a way of allowing more types of SLA to exist. Maybe Youtube makes a deal with T-Mobile to keep videos playing longer (before packets start dropping) in exchange for money. This money might allow T-Mobile to invest in other parts of its infrastructure. Isn't any backbone…

Backbone capacity is a separate issue from last-mile connectivity. Only one is truly a natural monopoly.

I don't care whether YouTube directly builds out backbone capacity or whether they outsource that to Level 3.

Incumbent last-mile providers enjoy a privileged position that gives them unfair bargaining power over end users. They should not be allowed to decide which content providers and applications get to have a successful business model. If anybody gets to pick winners and losers like that, it should be a democratically elected government, but it would be far better to just prohibit last-mile providers from imposing unfair artificial limits or costs.

If T-Mobile wants to make a deal with YouTube to provide a subsidized video streaming service with dedicated bandwidth to guarantee a certain level of video quality, then that service should be billed and provisioned separately from their common-carrier Internet and phone services. If they want this YouTube streaming service to be wireless, then they should have to acquire a separate spectrum license from the FCC and convince the FCC why a dedicated YouTube service deserves a slice of the public's limited RF spectrum when there are other video providers on the public Internet that would be disadvantaged.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#120

Post by djsumdog »

bluejekyll wrote: post #104
scarface74 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think that any many decently populated areas, it's at least a "duopoly". You would have the cable company and the phone company competing. I have a choice between Comcast and AT&T.

It's not really a choice. AT&T in my area of SF is still crap compared to Comcast. So yes, I could choose to use AT&T, but I would be getting substantially worse service. All cities should be investing in building out infrastructure themselves, as it would increase the desire for companies and people to live and work where they have better connectivity.

You can't get Fibre in your part of SF?
Post reply on HN