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

AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 281 posts

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#131

Post by jerkstate »

bifrost wrote: post #113
jerkstate wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the technical implementation of net neutrality is a ban of traffic policing (dropping prior to complete congestion to signal senders to slow down) for purposes other than "reasonable network management" So Comcast shaping Netflix when Cogent won't pay their share to upgrade their peering point is probably still legal, but they would probably have to go to court to prove that it was "reasonabl…

"The outcome is that telcos lose a lot of negotiating power to content providers." The percentage of content providers that deliver to telcos directly is almost zero. Netflix is one of the biggest notable ones, but even they don't always do it.

That's true. Content providers usually pay a (usually many) intermediary (usually a tier 1 or tier 2 backbone provider) to deliver the traffic to the ISP. In order to deliver the traffic from one network to the other, both companies need to have short and long haul cables, routers with high speed interfaces, and employees to manage and maintain those things. So there are costs of this traffic borne by both companies. They are both getting paid by their customers to deliver the traffic, but the "peering agreement" between them governs the cost sharing responsibility of that link between the two of them. If the intermediary fails to fulfill their obligations according to the peering agreement, it is opaque to the customer who is not living up to their end of the contract (and always blamed on the end-user's ISP)

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#132

Post by jachee »

jerkstate wrote: post #89
jachee wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISPs charge their customers for access. They should not be able to then restrict that access based on their business needs. Just because Netflix competes with Comcast (NBC) doesn't mean Comcast should be able to ignore their customers' desire to consume Netflix content. Because that's what it is. It's not like Netflix is generating petabytes of unsolicited traffic. They're providing the traffic Comcast's (or verizon'…

There used to be a time when content companies needed to carefully select their network transit partners in order to make sure the bits their customers were paying them for had the best chance of reaching them (see: the existence of the CDN industry). It seems that those times are over, and the internet will be legislated to be 100% reliable and capacious..

I don't think the internet should be any less-regulated than the power industry.

Westinghouse (e.g.) can't charge me more for power to run GE (e.g.) appliances. Comcast (e.g.) shouldn't be able to extort customers for access to (e.g.) Netflix.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#134

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

omg_ketchup wrote: post #94
_red wrote: post #41

For those of us who have used the internet 1989 to present, and who are dubious anytime we are told government is taking broad sweeping actions to "protect" us. Please explain the need for this regulation to exist. 1. Please define "network neutrality" - if possible do so without using hand-waving nonsense words, but technical definitions. What strictly defines a "neutrality infraction"? 2. If the internet existed fo…

They should treat the internet like they treat electricity. It doesn't matter if you're using it for a hair dryer or a work light or to charge your phone- you get it the same as everyone else for the same price. Why aren't we de-regulating power companies too?

Let's regulate Google/YouTube/Twitter/Facebook/Reddit/HN too.

No more censorship. Free speech is part of Constitution, NN is not. Free speech first, NN next.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#135

Post by chme »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #56
_red wrote: post #41

For those of us who have used the internet 1989 to present, and who are dubious anytime we are told government is taking broad sweeping actions to "protect" us. Please explain the need for this regulation to exist. 1. Please define "network neutrality" - if possible do so without using hand-waving nonsense words, but technical definitions. What strictly defines a "neutrality infraction"? 2. If the internet existed fo…

I am not speaking about the rest of your points (just don't have time right now), but I did want to note that the "the Internet existed w/o net neutrality" argument really frustrates me. The Internet of today isn't the Internet of a year ago, let alone the "~20 year" time frame you mention. Yes-- the Internet of 20 years ago didn't need regulation because the profit potential was minimal. It only makes sense, with mo…

I agree with you. Many ISPs would be quite good for the internet as a whole, but the problem with that is that just idealistic thinking in this case because the internet is a shared medium and infrastructure is build not only by companies but also by the tax payers.

In many cases the market can be left to its own devices to regulate themselves, but in some cases especially concerning infrastructure, interfaces, shared resources and basic human needs and rights we need regulation by the society that is not oriented to maximize profit in one business year but to create lasting and preservable goods.

Back to the net neutrality: I don't know if it that great for the market own regulation if you make it more difficult for consumer to objectively compare the offers of the different ISPs because you don't force them to release this information in a standardized format anymore.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#136

Post by AGSchneiderman »

_red wrote: post #41

For those of us who have used the internet 1989 to present, and who are dubious anytime we are told government is taking broad sweeping actions to "protect" us. Please explain the need for this regulation to exist. 1. Please define "network neutrality" - if possible do so without using hand-waving nonsense words, but technical definitions. What strictly defines a "neutrality infraction"? 2. If the internet existed fo…

I’m glad you asked – this is a very important question. In short, the regulation is needed to protect against ISPs prioritizing their profits over their consumers, which is something we have seen in the past where regulations were lacking.

As a preliminary matter, it’s important to recognize that net neutrality principles and protections in different forms have actually been around since 2005 and even earlier. So the flourishing of the internet and everything relying on it during that time occurred under the protections. A few years ago, however, the courts struck down one form of net neutrality protections (those that had relied on Title I of the Communications Act), so then in 2015 the FCC put net neutrality protections back in place under Title II instead (they also expanded the earlier protections, e.g., to include protections against abuses related to interconnection, which had not been the subject of net neutrality protections before 2015). Now, in 2017, the FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai is proposing to repeal net neutrality protections altogether (and the courts’ earlier decisions effectively foreclose a return to net neutrality protections under Title I). So that would be entirely new territory for the internet.

Why do we think that’s bad? Well, as I explained in my own public comment in the current proceeding (https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717583023587/FINAL%20RIF%20Co...), we’ve seen how companies behave in the absence of net neutrality protections, specifically in the area of interconnection before it was regulated in 2015, and their unregulated conduct harmed consumers. In essence, they made a deliberate business decision to let the quality of internet access degrade, knowing that it hurt consumers, to try to squeeze revenue out of edge providers like Netflix and backbone providers like Cogent and Level 3. Plus, we know that many consumers have few ISPs to choose from, so competition isn’t as effective a check as in other markets. So I believe strong net neutrality regulations are needed to avoid harms to consumers.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#137

Post by Natanael_L »

This may be completely off the mark, but it's worth asking;

If the FCC repeals net neutrality, and if the FCC blocks state level net neutrality laws, and if a state / municipality has a de facto monopoly contract with one ISP, and finally, if that ISP engages in filtering / blocking / throttling content...

Then wouldn't that imply a first amendment violation, in that the state sanctions (via contract) treating protected speech in violation of the first amendment rights?

Because the people involved are trying to engage in protected speech which is hindered by state laws?

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#138

Post by bifrost »

DiThi wrote: post #108
bifrost wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can, it'll just be a lot more expensive AFAIK.

Why?

Regulatory and compliance costs are regressive - they target small businesses because they're aimed at large businesses but tend to adversely affect smaller ones at a greater rate.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#139

Post by bifrost »

jerkstate wrote: post #131
bifrost wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The outcome is that telcos lose a lot of negotiating power to content providers." The percentage of content providers that deliver to telcos directly is almost zero. Netflix is one of the biggest notable ones, but even they don't always do it.

That's true. Content providers usually pay a (usually many) intermediary (usually a tier 1 or tier 2 backbone provider) to deliver the traffic to the ISP. In order to deliver the traffic from one network to the other, both companies need to have short and long haul cables, routers with high speed interfaces, and employees to manage and maintain those things. So there are costs of this traffic borne by both companies.…

Its rarely opaque TBH. Its usually pretty obvious who's failing to hold up to their end of the bargain. Gamers figure this out on their own all the time.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#140

Post by AGSchneiderman »

m0ther wrote: post #39

Do you need help? This is one of the best communities in the world to ask to write free analysis software to help you determine which entries were likely to have been automated.

If you have ideas for how to help my office's investigation, we welcome them. You can get in touch at https://ag.ny.gov/contact-attorney-general.

Generally speaking, I encourage anyone who wants to get involved in the fight to protect net neutrality to reach out to organizations they support that have been active and vocal here, and offer their support. Nonprofits and advocacy organizations are always in need of committed, talented people who are willing to help organize, including people with technical talent. Don’t be afraid to reach out.

Post reply on HN