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

FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 343 posts

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#151

Post by CocaKoala »

berrypicker wrote: post #85
trurl wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly you aren't living in the United States. My choices are Comcast, Comcast, and Comcast. I'm really starting to think mesh networks are going to be the only solution.

Are there no smaller, 'independent' ISPs which aren't part of conglomerates that are unlikely to remain net-neutral?

Here's the thing about smaller, 'independent' ISPs: they're small. That means they don't have very large coverage, and the US is a very large country. So even though there are SOME smaller, independent ISPs which are likely to remain net-neutral, they can only service a very tiny portion of the population. That doesn't help everybody else.

I live in Santa Clara, in the South Bay. It's pretty close to the heart of Silicon Valley. My only option for an ISP is Comcast; my choices are literally, in the true definition of literally, use Comcast or don't get internet. And that's not really a choice, is it?

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#152

Post by mwsherman »

moultano wrote: post #114
mwsherman wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CDNs are essentially identical (technologically and economically) to what Netflix bought from Comcast: http://clipperhouse.com/2014/05/07/what-netflix-bought-from-... To my mind, I can’t imagine a rule that describes a fast lane that doesn’t also describe a CDN.

CDNs increase the overall capacity of the network by caching content closer to its destination. This benefits everyone, even the traffic that is not cached by the CDN because it reduces congestion for everyone. The behavior we are worried about is zero sum (where some packets get prioritized and others lose out), or even negative sum (where some packets get held for ransom.)

That’s true, and it’s also true when Netflix buys a dedicated circuit to Comcast. Their traffic is no longer going over the other circuits.

Not saying it’s the right thing to do, but that it’s functionally the same.

It’s also functionally the same to say that any traffic not on the CDN is in a slow lane or being held ransom, in the sense that it will be congested until the publisher pays.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#153

Post by angersock »

berrypicker wrote: post #85
trurl wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly you aren't living in the United States. My choices are Comcast, Comcast, and Comcast. I'm really starting to think mesh networks are going to be the only solution.

Are there no smaller, 'independent' ISPs which aren't part of conglomerates that are unlikely to remain net-neutral?

In the vast, vaaaast majority of cases, "no".

Especially in apartment complexes, you'll have a single carrier lock down entire areas in a no-compete way.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#154

Post by stcredzero »

mwsherman wrote: post #101
ColinDabritz wrote: post #20

"And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers." I have a measure in mind that won't harm consumers. Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. (Gee that sounds a lot like net neutrality.) Anything less is open for abuse. Perhaps "Discrimination" is a good w…

CDNs are essentially identical (technologically and economically) to what Netflix bought from Comcast: http://clipperhouse.com/2014/05/07/what-netflix-bought-from-... To my mind, I can’t imagine a rule that describes a fast lane that doesn’t also describe a CDN.

Something is going on here, such that the market isn't working. Otherwise, Comcast et al would be buying CDNs and vertically integrating to increase profits. But with our current system, it's more cost effective to lobby your way into bigger profits.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#155

Post by ep103 »

sinak wrote: post #139
dragonwriter wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are reading it correctly. And the NYT seems to be reporting it correctly. While the text is not published yet anywhere I can see, the FCC fact sheet states that the proposal (direct quotes with only formatting/presentation changes) [1]: - Proposes to retain the definitions and scope of the 2010 rules, which governed broadband Internet access service providers, but not services like enterprise services, Internet t…

It's important to note that the FCC is avoiding dealing with the peering issue (so, for example, Netflix's issue) with their current proposal. Wheeler specifically said that they want to delay that part of the net neutrality debate until later. In my view that's a mistake.

Nah, not a mistake, Wheeler's leadership has been rock solid!

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#156

Post by nashequilibrium »

worace wrote: post #110
sinak wrote: post #81

The title and post are both quite misleading. The commissioners didn't approve Tom Wheeler's plan (to regulate the Internet under Section 706), but voted to go ahead with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and commenting period. Tom Wheeler stated multiple times that Title II classification is still on the table. There'll now be a 120 day commenting period; 60 days of comments from companies and the public, and then 6…

Adding to the confusion, the NYT has an article up right now which seems to report the opposite. To quote from the NYT article lede: "WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on Thursday to invite public comment on a set of proposed rules aimed at guaranteeing an open Internet, prohibiting high-speed Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through t…

This is a bit concerning as a number of non tech people but people that just use facebook, instagram, gmail ect that i have spoken to are confused. It would be nice to see a simplification so that the avg guy in the street can understand the effects of this.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#157

Post by stcredzero »

lutorm wrote: post #134
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that a network that can stream 20Mbit continuously to every customer (so they always can get the "advertised" bandwidth) would be absurdly expensive, and rates would have to go up accordingly Then maybe they should advertise a different bandwidth?

This is sort of like car advertisements, that always touts "350hp V8" or whatever, even though in the vast majority of real-life usage you can use that power for at most a second or two at some freeway onramp or in a passing lane. Saying that the connection is technically capable of 20Mbit/s is different from guaranteeing 20Mbit/s in any possible usage situation. The problem with my analogy is that people generally h…

But this is just a problem with awareness. With the rise of Tesla cars, there has been an increase of public awareness of low speed torque. As more people have become aware of solar, more people have become aware of base-load generation. If ISPs started advertising "guaranteed bandwidth" customers would definitely pay attention, especially with the crappy product they've been getting thus far.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#158

Post by ep103 »

todayiamme wrote: post #76

In my mind one of the key questions to ask in this debate is, if the eventual rise of a more closely controlled internet destroys this frontier, what's next? Right now thanks to a close confluence of remarkable factors, the barriers associated with starting something are almost negligible. The steady march of Moore's law combined with visualisation has given us servers that cost fractions of a penny to lease per hour…

They won't, this is how you kill a sector of the economy. Hopefully it won't come to that, but then again, that's why this is important.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#160

Post by darkarmani »

twoodfin wrote: post #48
ColinDabritz wrote: post #20

"And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers." I have a measure in mind that won't harm consumers. Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. (Gee that sounds a lot like net neutrality.) Anything less is open for abuse. Perhaps "Discrimination" is a good w…

Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. It's (relatively) cheap for Netflix or their CDN partners to connect their content-serving systems to a few dozen "meet me" rooms where it's "easy" for Comcast to hook as many wires up as necessary to receive the requested data into their network at an acceptable rate. That's all Netflix or the…

> But Comcast has to deliver all this data to tens of millions of customers spread out around the nation. While it would be nice if their networks were sufficiently provisioned to serve, say, half their customers 20Mbit/sec continuously during primetime, that is just not the network they have today. It will always be cheaper for Netflix to turn up the spigot than for Comcast to build out its infrastructure. Should "network neutrality" force Comcast to spend billions every time Netflix doubles its streaming rate?

That has nothing to do with intentionally throttling netflix traffic. Network neutrality has never forced Comcast to upgrade its infrastructure, so I'm not sure why that is even a question in your mind. We've had net neutrality for 20 years. Why would it all of a sudden force them to spend billions?

Post reply on HN