GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws • Hacker News Board

Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

#151

Post by wtallis » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 2:35 AM UTC

aeolus811tw wrote: post #148

24gttghh wrote: post #33

Here [0] is the actual text (i.e. hosted directly by congress.gov) which arstechnica was so thoughtful to not link to. >“(2) may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. Seems like what NN proponents want, isn't it? >“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing in…

Normally a lurker, but I created an account specifically to reply to you. > “(2) may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. look at the very end. "subject to reasonable network management" I think that is an extremely broad term to be put in place; recalling the argument ISP had…

The "reasonable network management" bit is a gaping loophole carried over from previous net neutrality regulations. So far, no serious attempt has been made to determine what technological measures are actually justifiable DDoS protections and which ones are impermissible preferential treatment.

Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

#152

Post by pawy » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 7:43 AM UTC

Truely I don't understand why the biggest aspect of this problem is not talked out.

They are basically tempering with everyone's liberty to start a business on internet. Damaging US citizen capacity to create new internet opportunities and be able to compete with their favorites pets.

Why the f* are you talking about slow and fast lanes ? It is true, but most importantly is this passes on. Any service that would like to be taken seriously would have to pay his way in.

Why everybody has so gentle titles ? Fast / Slow lanes is very abstract.

Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

#153

Post by croon » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 9:13 AM UTC

24gttghh wrote: post #80

Retric wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems like ... No the exceptions are huge. Netflix is throttled based on network they slow everything on that network down so this explicitly allows one of the known examples of throttling that actually occurred.

I figured as much but since no one was talking about the actual text of the bill I thought this was a good starting point :)

The article linked talked about the actual text of the bill. It might not have linked it, but their interpretations and the interpretations of experts interviewed are correct. It already was a good starting point.

Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

#154

Post by notyourday » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 12:22 PM UTC

notyourday wrote: post #135

wtallis wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> QoS being a quantity of service is a very well known term, pioneered and popularized by Dave Rand/Avi Freedman to describe that QOS establishes which packets are to be dropped on the floor first. So you're still trying to re-define the literal text of what the "QoS" initialism expands to, and now you're also trying to narrow the scope of QoS as defined by everybody else. There's more to QoS than just deciding which…

Ok, lets do basics. You have 1Mbit/sec worth of traffic and the max connection speed is 10Mbit/sec. Packet loss is at 0% and latency is speed of light + speed of forwarding. Do you need QoS in this case?

I love the downvote on the parent.

Essentially, this is the problem of NN supporters - they just don't have a clue.

2+2 is 4. And 4 is smaller than 5. Sorry, kids.

Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

#155

Post by notyourday » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 3:58 PM UTC

wtallis wrote: post #100

notyourday wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's something that you should bring up with your local government . It is your local government that is blocking roll outs of FTTH. Even at 10Mbit/sec congestion will be at the core. Comcast currently claims to have 22.3 million internet customers. At 10 Mbit/sec it means 223.3 MILLION megabit per second that needed to be handed off to transit. It is not possible.

> That's something that you should bring up with your local government. It is your local government that is blocking roll outs of FTTH. That's definitely not true in my specific case, and probably isn't true all that often in the general case. Deploying FTTH to existing paying customers who already have halfway decent infrastructure doesn't have a very compelling short-term return on investment even when the local go…

They are blocking competitors from installing fiber via franchise agreements or requirement that entire municipality is wired.

By doing that your municipality is preventing price competition on the physical last mile which means that Comcast has no need to upgrade service.

Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws

#156

Post by notyourday » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 3:59 PM UTC

wanderingbort wrote: post #47

notyourday wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not needed: https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2010-December/0292...

whats interesting is that nothing about the current net-neutrality discussions addresses concerns like these. They may or may not be substantiated concerns. The graphs don't show intent so, that much is assumed.

That's because NN proponents have no idea what they are talking about. Cure for SVitis is make everyone do a stint racking servers, running fiber and opening tickets with a telco to undo effects of grooming on your circuits.