Live data from Hacker News

Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

juliareda.eu

121–130 of 181 posts

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true. In the US you have a small number of telcos with a strong grip on the industry whereas in many (but not all) EU countries excessive choice reduces the problems. The thing to understand about net neutrality is it's a transfer of power from business to government. The devil is in the detail. If you look closely at the laws involved there are vague clauses that allow for extra government censorship and con…

Can you clarify who you are referring to as the do-gooders here? Everyone who is asking for net neutrality? And is the common people the group who is the victim of the poisoned chalice?

I didn't write that comment, but in my opinion net neutrality is mostly a solution in search of a problem. Hypothetically, ISPs could try extorting and controlling the entire internet, but realistically it's not going to work.

I'm more concerned about app neutrality. Apple is extorting 30% from app makers and enforces rules to ensure their dominance over my phone.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#122
post #103
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is playing by the same rules so they would all end up advertising 2.5 mbps @ 50$ / month with speed boost if that's what they can provide. The important point is it does not actually take much bandwidth to do streaming video etc, but if you can't provide reasonable bandwidth when people want to use it then it's false advertising. PS: Don't forget back haul is actually a relatively minor cost for most ISP's.…

I can watch a Netflix movie in 3G at 320kmh (TGV, in France). So you're right, video consumes fewer bandwidth than we imagine. But it's common that I can't view a proper Youtube video on ADSL. ISPs are really being deceptive when they provide a connection to "the Internet".

It's a well known fact that certain ISPs in France will not peer with YouTube and thus their connections are congested.

This is not a technical problem, but a business decision. The at only solution is to vote with your wallet and chose an ISP that sucks less.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That certainly depends. But just because a cost is fixed doesn't mean it's free or low.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are talking about the case from 5ish years ago, that was because the court struck down the entire basis for net neutrality. The net neutrality rules themselves didn't allow for blocking p2p.

yeah, that's the case. Could you clarify? I'm just seeing old articles claiming the last court verdict on the matter was that the FCC overstepped its authority in that particular case? Did some case or law change this? But yeah, hard to see how discriminating a particular protocol w/o cause could be network neutral.

Sure. There was a new FCC ruling that based it's decision on a much more legally sound law.

The FCC is allowed to regulate telecommunication services strictly. Right now it takes a sort of a hands off approach, but they have broad authority to make rules. Before 2015, the FCC considered ISPs to be "information services" instead of "telecommunication services." So the first time the FCC proposed net neutrality rules, it tried to apply them under the "information services" framework.

The Court in 2010 (I think) found that the FCC didn't have the power to regulate "information services" so harshly. So the court canceled their net neutrality rules.

So last year the FCC reclassified ISPs as telecommunication services. Since they are allowed to harshly regulate those services, it's considered very likely to upheld by the court this time.

The only chance it gets struck down is if the court thinks the FCC was clearly wrong about ISPs being a telecommunication service. But the law is pretty clear that are. But I think some ISPs are still fighting it.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you clarify who you are referring to as the do-gooders here? Everyone who is asking for net neutrality? And is the common people the group who is the victim of the poisoned chalice?

I didn't write that comment, but in my opinion net neutrality is mostly a solution in search of a problem. Hypothetically, ISPs could try extorting and controlling the entire internet, but realistically it's not going to work. I'm more concerned about app neutrality. Apple is extorting 30% from app makers and enforces rules to ensure their dominance over my phone.

> I didn't write that comment, but in my opinion net neutrality is mostly a solution in search of a problem.

Net neutrality is (partial) remedy for lack of competition. Cure that and a lot of the reasons for net neutrality disappear. However, it is not realistic to expect true competition in the US telecoms market anytime soon.

One reason a lot of people see net neutrality as a solution in search of a problem is that net neutrality was the default before and it hasn't been egregiously abused to date. I'm sure a lot of people will agree it's a problem once they get some first hand experience of it.

> Hypothetically, ISPs could try extorting and controlling the entire internet, but realistically it's not going to work.

I don't know. Comcast seems to be doing a pretty good job at it in the US.

> I'm more concerned about app neutrality. Apple is extorting 30% from app makers and enforces rules to ensure their dominance over my phone.

You do know you can sideload apps on your phone?

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That certainly depends. But just because a cost is fixed doesn't mean it's free or low.

I made no promises of either free or low.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#127
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…

I don't think "of exceptional or temporary network congestion..." means "at will".

Recital 15, attached to the article 3(3)c, goes to great length defining what exceptional means, that such traffic may be managed, temporarily, only if it was unpredictable, unavoidable, and short duration, or it damages network reactivity. It clearly states that such management is not a replacement for upgrading bandwidth, both mobile and fixed. And even then they cannot prejudice specific traffic, just an entire class of it, again, only temporarily.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#128
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…

Here is some more text, from directly below what you pasted.

    Recital 15
    ==========
    
    Third, measures going beyond such reasonable traffic management
    measures might also be necessary to prevent impending network
    congestion, that is, situations where congestion is about to
    materialise, and to mitigate the effects of network congestion, where
    such congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional
    circumstances. The principle of proportionality requires that traffic
    management measures based on that exception treat equivalent
    categories of traffic equally.  Temporary congestion should be
    understood as referring to specific situations of short duration,
    where a sudden increase in the number of users in addition to the
    regular users, or a sudden increase in demand for specific content,
    applications or services, may overflow the transmission capacity of
    some elements of the network and make the rest of the network less
    reactive. Temporary congestion might occur especially in mobile
    networks, which are subject to more variable conditions, such as
    physical obstructions, lower indoor coverage, or a variable number of
    active users with changing location. While it may be predictable that
    such temporary congestion might occur from time to time at certain
    points in the network – such that it cannot be regarded as exceptional
    – it might not recur so often or for such extensive periods that a
    capacity expansion would be economically justified.  Exceptional
    congestion should be understood as referring to unpredictable and
    unavoidable situations of congestion, both in mobile and fixed
    networks. Possible causes of those situations include a technical
    failure such as a service outage due to broken cables or other
    infrastructure elements, unexpected changes in routing of traffic or
    large increases in network traffic due to emergency or other
    situations beyond the control of providers of internet access
    services. Such congestion problems are likely to be infrequent but may
    be severe, and are not necessarily of short duration. The need to
    apply traffic management measures going beyond the reasonable traffic
    management measures in order to prevent or mitigate the effects of
    temporary or exceptional network congestion should not give providers
    of internet access services the possibility to circumvent the general
    prohibition on blocking, slowing down, altering, restricting,
    interfering with, degrading or discriminating between specific
    content, applications or services, or specific categories
    thereof. Recurrent and more long-lasting network congestion which is
    neither exceptional nor temporary should not benefit from that
    exception but should rather be tackled through expansion of network
    capacity.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#129
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…

I don't think "of exceptional or temporary network congestion..." means "at will". Recital 15, attached to the article 3(3)c, goes to great length defining what exceptional means, that such traffic may be managed, temporarily, only if it was unpredictable, unavoidable, and short duration, or it damages network reactivity. It clearly states that such management is not a replacement for upgrading bandwidth, both mobile…

Yes, this!

The recitals are awesome! I wish USAmerica would use this type of exposition in their legalese.

Hm, this is all I found so far about the practice: https://web.archive.org/web/20130622043635/http://eur-lex.eu...

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a property rights issue. Specifically, should private organisations be allowed to own major pieces of infrastructure? The European vision of capitalism is where you can own, say, a cafe or mobile app, and do what you want with it. However, something like a telecoms network or search engine is too important to be kept in the hands of ruthless big business, and the state needs to step in to control who said busine…

From the report: "In this context we must highlight the danger of restrictive Net Neutrality rules, in the context of 5G technologies, business applications and beyond. 5G introduces the concept of “Network Slicing” to accommodate a wide-variety of industry verticals’ business models on a common platform, at scale and with services guarantees. Automated driving, smart grid control, virtual reality and public safety s…

That kind of thinly veiled extortion is exactly why harsher regulation is required.
Post reply on HN