Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority • Hacker News Board

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#151

Post by derekp7 » Wed, May 03, 2017, 3:36 PM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #126

derekp7 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, there is the concern that potential new technologies wouldn't be allowed under a strict interpretation of net neutrality. For a hypothetical example: go back in time when voice over IP first came on the scene. At that time there wasn't enough excess bandwidth to guarantee voice packets would arrive on time. Now you could prioritize voice traffic, but you'd have to either charge a fee, or find…

ISPs charging their own customers for prioritization is completely compatible with net neutrality. Detecting and prioritizing voice would be open to interpretation but would probably be considered reasonable network management. Letting people mark whatever they want as latency-sensitive but charging more for it? Totally fine.

Of course, it is a fine line between an ISP allowing someone (who is not a customer) to pay them for higher priority, vs the ISP purposely maintaining a low quality route to certain other web sites to "encourage" them to pay up (this is what Comcast did with Netflix a while ago -- Netflix traffic came through a smaller pipe into Comcast, until Netflix paid up).

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#152

Post by s73ver » Wed, May 03, 2017, 4:12 PM UTC

snickerbockers wrote: post #140

s73ver wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Your argument completely falls flat when you ignore the fact that most people do not have choice for their ISP. Because you keep ignoring this, and saying it's the fault of people who had nothing to do with it, I have to believe you are not discussing in good faith.

m80, if there's only one ice cream truck that drives through my neighborhood and he won't stock mint chocolate chip, the correct solution to this problem is not to petition the government to make a law requiring all ice cream flavors to be stocked equally.

We're not talking about ice cream. And yes, the proper solution is to have government require that all data is treated equally. Because, despite your attempts at dodging, there are places in this country where competition just is not viable, as those places are not profitable. And removing regulations WILL NOT CHANGE THAT. Those people deserve a neutral net too.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#153

Post by forgotmysn » Wed, May 03, 2017, 6:49 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #150

forgotmysn wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You raise an important point, and if this event took place in isolation, I might even agree with your sentiment. However, this, in combination with FCC Chairman Pai's recent actions demonstrate an organized, concerted effort to deregulate Internet Service Provision. And with the GOP in control of both houses and the Executive branch, combined with their desperate need for political wins, makes me concerned that they…

FCC/Pai is getting thoroughly treated elsewhere, and the rest is political sausage-making.

true, but its looking like the GOP is getting ready to have a bbq

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#154

Post by forgotmysn » Wed, May 03, 2017, 6:51 PM UTC

tn135 wrote: post #142

forgotmysn wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not suggesting that fast, consistent internet service is cheap to provide. However, I'm also not convinced that comcast's prices aren't as high as they are, and their margins as low as they are, only because its a costly service to provide. It's also because they are really bad at providing it. But that wasn't even my main point. My point is that Comcast is more interested in providing a return to their sharehold…

> However, I'm also not convinced that comcast's prices aren't as high as they are The math is for you to see. > It's also because they are really bad at providing it. And how many ISP companies do you have experience running ? > My point is that Comcast is more interested in providing a return to their shareholders than they in providing effective and satisfying customer service. What is wrong with it ? Has worked w…

>The math is for you to see.

It's not math.

>And how many ISP companies do you have experience running ?

Indirectly, 2. I worked for both my father's and my uncle's ISP's, both of which they owned and operated.

>What is wrong with it ? Has worked well for Google.

Alright, fair, you got me there.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#155

Post by pseudalopex » Fri, May 05, 2017, 4:14 AM UTC

derekp7 wrote: post #151

pseudalopex wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISPs charging their own customers for prioritization is completely compatible with net neutrality. Detecting and prioritizing voice would be open to interpretation but would probably be considered reasonable network management. Letting people mark whatever they want as latency-sensitive but charging more for it? Totally fine.

Of course, it is a fine line between an ISP allowing someone (who is not a customer) to pay them for higher priority, vs the ISP purposely maintaining a low quality route to certain other web sites to "encourage" them to pay up (this is what Comcast did with Netflix a while ago -- Netflix traffic came through a smaller pipe into Comcast, until Netflix paid up).

It was more complicated than that. Level 3 took advantage of its peering agreement with Comcast to undercut Akamai for Netflix's business. Comcast argued that the agreement was meant for transit, not to subsidize Level 3's CDN operations. All three companies had valid points, and all three had ulterior motives.