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

Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

juliareda.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 181 posts

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#161

Post by objectivistbrit »

whybroke wrote: post #148
objectivistbrit wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Or is the objection merely to some wholly imaginary threat to the purity of the anglo-saxon race and culture and an unthinking and instantaneous embracing of anything nationalist and right leaning?" Yes. Yes it is. Everyone who disagrees with you is emotionally driven and intellectually dishonest. The goal we object to was the attempt to build a giant country. The EEC should have stuck with the tariff free zone and…

> The goal we object to was the attempt to build a giant country. Why? Honestly, how would that be bad? After all the UK consists of Wales, England, Scotland and N. Ireland. People of the past opposed that unity so much they were willing to die to try to prevent it yet on the whole that unity has been undeniably positive. For the EU for example, how could having an single foreign policy be a bad idea in any way? How…

The EU is too large and diverse to be a viable country. Inevitably, it ends up ruled by a technocratic elite (because there's no way democracy can work with 500 million people and 28 cultures) and with recurring crises (because there's no economic policy that works for all countries, and no means to agree on any fixes).

You seem wilfully ignorant: you focus on my non-essential point about the flag, for example, and ignore the obvious issues with the EU (which a cursory Google search will help you find).

Stiglitz identified the fundamental crossroads: the only fix for the Eurozone's monetary problems is fiscal union. Thing is, if that happens, there'll be further crises and further demands for integration. None of this will make the Germans and Greeks resent each other less, and the endgame is a resurgence of nationalism.

I'm a capitalist, not a nationalist, and it's very obvious to me that the EU should have remained a trade union of independent countries.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#162

Post by diamondlovesyou »

Retric wrote: post #84
heinrichhartman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not likely going to happen nore is it a sensible thing to ask for. As an ISP how would you _guarantee_ the bandwidth for each endpoint? You would have to provision for the maximal capacity all over your network. Given that most people only utilize their channel 1% of the time, this is a huge waste! What's sensible to ask ISPs to do is: (a) Communicate historically experienced bandwith at each region (b) Provid…

A sensible rule would be 98th percentile so 98% of the time every customer can get X bandwidth. This allows for ~10 hours of downtime or congestion a month. They can still over provision, they just can't outright lie.

Except they don't control external hosts. Cox Comm doesn't control that person hosting a server on AOL dialup.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#163

Post by ManlyBread »

headmelted wrote: post #30

It encourages me to see that the European court at least has some people on it that seem to understand that net neutrality is in fact a human rights issue. And this is why Brexit is so heart-breaking. I'm surrounded by people in my personal life who think it's a fantastic idea, but they're not the most... informed? Likewise for local politicians. (Side note to my rant: I have this theory that the rise of the iPhone,…

>I would rather have decisions made by people in Brussels that understand what they're doing. >that understand what they're doing.

Wishful thinking.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#164

Post by doikor »

nordify wrote: post #55
tajen wrote: post #26

Next fight : That ISPs advertise the minimum guaranteed bandwidth and are banned from advertising the maximum theoretical number. Then only we could measure that they do offer the same bandwidth with Netflix and Vimeo as they advertise. Net neutrality at its best. Edit: Of course the number will be very low because they have to (God forbid!) provision their network to serve this bandwidth to all customers during peak…

This is roughly how it works in Finland, although the maximum speed can be advertised. It works fairly well. The real kicker is that the regulator has actually defined acceptable minimum speeds. Minimum speeds can be stated either as an average or a range. Acceptable averages are at least 50% of the advertised maximum speed measured during any 4 hour period. If stated as a range, 40% of the maximum speed as a lower b…

They are trying to up that 40% to 75% now.

http://fin.afterdawn.com/uutiset/artikkeli.cfm/2016/08/17/st... (in Finnish only though)

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#165

Post by lagadu »

j2ko4r wrote: post #158
lugg wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly my point though. It's not the same category, but it IS a competing service playing on an unfair playing field. Leveling the playing field for people playing the same game is all fine and dandy, but it completely fucks over disruptive innovations challenging the status quo in a different category. How about this one, people watch less TV than they did ten years ago, a lot of that time is now spent using…

> It's not the same category, but it IS a competing service playing on an unfair playing field. It really isn't. Netflix isn't a protocol, and if you're using torrents as a drop in replacement for Netflix you're breaking copyright law in any case. You can't argue that you use torrents as a competing service without implying you're breaking the law.

That's not illegal in all European countries though so it's potentially a valid argument.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#166

Post by lagadu »

diamondlovesyou wrote: post #162
Retric wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A sensible rule would be 98th percentile so 98% of the time every customer can get X bandwidth. This allows for ~10 hours of downtime or congestion a month. They can still over provision, they just can't outright lie.

Except they don't control external hosts. Cox Comm doesn't control that person hosting a server on AOL dialup.

No, but they can guarantee a certain speed within the borders of their network.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#167

Post by WilliamDhalgren »

lugg wrote: post #150
WilliamDhalgren wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope; that would simply be challenged in court.

Really, who is going to challenge the difference between Netflix and torrents. Both video. Both serve the end user in the same way. But nobody will challenge it because nobody is in charge of torrents. This kills neutrality completely. There is no way those ruling over this know where to draw the category lines properly.

Well for one, torrent's not a video format. Let alone a streaming video service.

And anyhow, FCC did exactly that; they went after Comcast for throttling torrents for no reason. And throttling torrents just because they're torrents is clearly not permissable by this clause by BEREC either; all it allows for is temporary and exceptional traffic shaping in case of congestion, provided it's done nondiscriminatorily. Which is a good thing; an ISP needs to have a neutral course of action available then besides a meltdown of its net. And yeah, I'd say latency insensitive bulk downloads would be perfectly sensible to deprioritize then. Now, doing what's reserved for recovery in general instead is certainly an abuse of network neutrality, by this rulebook as by FCCs.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#168

Post by WilliamDhalgren »

lagadu wrote: post #165
j2ko4r wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not the same category, but it IS a competing service playing on an unfair playing field. It really isn't. Netflix isn't a protocol, and if you're using torrents as a drop in replacement for Netflix you're breaking copyright law in any case. You can't argue that you use torrents as a competing service without implying you're breaking the law.

That's not illegal in all European countries though so it's potentially a valid argument.

copyright law is in fact harmonized on EU level, by the EU copyright directive. Not that it could be substantially different already by Berne convention on a global level.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#169

Post by lagadu »

WilliamDhalgren wrote: post #168
lagadu wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not illegal in all European countries though so it's potentially a valid argument.

copyright law is in fact harmonized on EU level, by the EU copyright directive. Not that it could be substantially different already by Berne convention on a global level.

Curiously enough, Switzerland is one of the two european countries where making a copy of a copyrighted work for private use is not illegal.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#170

Post by Swizec »

revanx_ wrote: post #160
Swizec wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an ISP how would you _guarantee_ the bandwidth for each endpoint? When I still lived in Slovenia, I had 20/20 FTTH. Fiber went directly into a router in my bedroom. My bandwidth was always exactly 20/20. No matter what. Now I have Comcast. Speedtest says I get 80/6. On Friday and Saturday evenings Netflix and Facebook and many other things often experience issues. Now I can't confirm any of this. If you run spee…

As someone living in Slovenia and still running on ADSL2+ I'm jelly. Regarding your 20/20, highly suspect, it's likely you were doing speedtest tests against your ISPs server which would make sense but you would never get that past their gateway.

I wasn't doing speedtests though, I was running torrents 24/7. High school was fun like that. Torrents were the only way to get music, movies, and TV shows back then.
Post reply on HN