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

FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 202 posts

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#181

Post by verdverm »

KETHERCORTEX wrote: post #178
verdverm wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using the Google widget when you search "speedtest" It tests using a node 200+ miles away (they tell you where) AND it actually shows slow numbers when the pipe is slow. Turns out Amazon Video was the culprit, somehow using 80% of a 100Mb connection for a single stream...

> I've been using the Google widget when you search "speedtest" Google doesn't show me this widget, but the speed test on Google Fiber's website is just a frontend for Ookla's Speedtest I mentioned. So I suspect that the widget does the same or similar stuff. I don't know for sure though. > It tests using a node 200+ miles away (they tell you where) "200+ miles away" from your physical location doesn't mean "outer in…

The other node is in another country that does not have the same ISP. Again, it seemed accurate, so not sure why your even bringing it up. We could watch it change as we turned on and off the Amazon stream. That's how we figured out that it was this one service, not the ISP or Internet at large

Amazon says how many gigs per hour it uses for different qualities, none went over 2 digits in an hour, so there should have been sufficient bandwidth.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#182

Post by thfuran »

hn_acker wrote: post #166
seanw444 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving it up to what people are willing and capable of doing sounds as fair as can be to me. That's what competition is there for. It also is not perfect, but it is better. I expect to get dogpiled on Hacker News though. The demographic here has a fondness of rules. We give computers rules. That fondness translates to non-technical fields, for better or for worse. In this case, worse.

> Leaving it up to what people are willing and capable of doing sounds as fair as can be to me. That's what competition is there for. It also is not perfect, but it is better. Is it better? Congress and the FCC has never done much to punish wrongdoing by ISPs [1]. Large ISPs including AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon commit subsidy fraud with impunity. (See the links in my other comment. [2]) And on the issue of fairness,…

>By heavy penalties, I mean at least 80% of the revenue gained from anti-competitive practices.

How is a fine of less than the proceeds a heavy penalty? There needs to be punitive damages or personal liability for the responsible executives, otherwise it's still a profitable business strategy.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#183

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

pyuser583 wrote: post #11

Did any of the bad effects of not having net neutrality actually occur when it was gone? Did ISPs throttle competition? I haven’t seen any reports of this happening. I haven’t seen any studies showing this happening systematically. I’m woefully uninformed, so I really would like to hear more about this. What has been happening these past few years?

well I didn't have caps before net neutrality, so there's that.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#185

Post by Phileosopher »

jahabrewer wrote: post #74

Feel pretty jaded about this after reading Ben Thompson on Title II: https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/ Sidebar: I was 1000% pro-Title II last time this came up in 2015 and went through https://www.battleforthenet.com/ , I think to email my legislators. Fortunately, I used a tagged/aliased email address. That address has apparently gotten into the Democrats' "never lose this email" bin. I regu…

If you wish to comment to the FCC about it, you can do so here:

https://www.fcc.gov/document/proposing-reestablished-open-in...

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#186

Post by quitit »

mptest wrote: post #172
quitit wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's people trying their absolute best to be opaque while holding completely obvious political views.

Yeah, I know and agree, but I've had (my only) two comments flagged for being more direct in accosting enlightened centrism. Disgusting to me to see people on this forum of normally highly intelligent people comparing in any degree the side that tried to over throw democracy, denies basic science from vaccines to climate, is against voter rights like mail in ballots/accessible polling stations, against women's and ga…

It also stinks of the "I'm the smartest person in the room" phenomena.

As if no one here can plainly see the heavy handed labelling of established scientific facts as a "political opinion".

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#187

Post by edmundsauto »

patmorgan23 wrote: post #107
edmundsauto wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do they lie on speed tests? I thought that measured actual data throughput.

You do traffic shaping and prioritize speed test traffic.

This isn’t lying, it’s measuring something accurately but not measuring what you want it to measure. There isn’t a contract or regulation that they can’t prioritize certain traffic.

It does feel a bit deceptive, I grant. But to me, lying would be if they tricked speedtest into display 10mbit when only 2mbit of traffic was transferred.

Everyone games the tests. That’s why you can’t trust just about any performance test unless you run it for your workload.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#188

Post by smolder »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #152
smolder wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At any point, will any company say that they have sufficient funding, subsidies, etc.? ("You've given us enough, thank you!") Plainly, I don't believe they need or deserve that money merely because they have lobbyists/bought politicians that say they do.

> Plainly, I don't believe they need or deserve that money merely because they have lobbyists/bought politicians that say they do. The small ISPs need sufficient money to comply with federal orders to rip & replace expensive Huawei gear.

Yeah, I understand the premise, but I would need to see a cost breakdown before I accept the claim that they needed significantly more money than they already got. Industry groups have a tendency to plead for handouts endlessly.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#189

Post by pyuser583 »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #99
thebradbain wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet it can’t be used to stop California vehicle emission standards, which is why almost all car manufacturers in the US make cars up to California’s higher standards, because they’re so big.

In fairness, while I detest that California's laws become de facto national laws, it doesn't seem appropriate to use the commerce clause there. California isn't trying to regulate interstate commerce, it's not their fault that manufacturers are too cheap to have different models that meet California's standards while having a normal model for the rest of the country.

We use the commerce clause everywhere.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#190

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

smolder wrote: post #188
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plainly, I don't believe they need or deserve that money merely because they have lobbyists/bought politicians that say they do. The small ISPs need sufficient money to comply with federal orders to rip & replace expensive Huawei gear.

Yeah, I understand the premise, but I would need to see a cost breakdown before I accept the claim that they needed significantly more money than they already got. Industry groups have a tendency to plead for handouts endlessly.

Lobbying and fund-scamming are disproportionately done by major ISPs. Small, local ISPs are far, far less likely to have the resources to - 1) pull it off and 2) insulate themselves from the consequences.

The original parent comment was referencing a local ISP.

Post reply on HN