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

ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 329 posts

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#221

Post by HWR_14 »

Bilal_io wrote: post #173
HWR_14 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like T-Mobile's zero-rating solution. Specific classes of data (sub-480p video) would be zero rated for all servers who filled out paperwork, no source-based discrimination. That made sense. Also, kinda obviously, government emergency services (911, weather alerts, etc) being zero-rated just make sense. I don't want zero rating to let FB subsidize plans that allow free access to FB. I think we can find some uses th…

Well, I'd like my ISP to get their nose out of my traffic and stop sniffing like a coke addict. One of Net Neutrality arguments is that you sell me speed (and bandwidth where data caps apply, but shouldn't) and I can do whatever I want. It is I, that pays for the service, not Netflix nor Google or any platform, and if I want to watch YouTube in 4K because my speed allows me to, or if I want to turn my PC into a seedi…

It doesn't stop you from watching in 4K video. It just provides another option. But critically, this is an option that you, the customer, negotiate with T-Mobile. You contract for X gigs plus unlimited sub-480p traffic. And tiered data (X gigs of high-speed, Y or infinite gigs of low speed) is really common in cellphone contracts. This is just making it clear you can get the low speed data without having to burn your high speed up first.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#222

Post by Karunamon »

lelandfe wrote: post #212
ekianjo wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US has some of the most expensive Internet access in the world. Really? Some highly developed countries have fairly expensive Internet as well. Not sure the US is much of an exception, if you consider not just the cheapest countries.

It's definitely expensive (2014 data): https://www.broadbandsearch.net/blog/internet-costs-compared... > the United States ranks second on the list of OECD countries, behind only Mexico, for most expensive internet prices > When we look at Europe as a whole, we can see that the United States pays more for broadband internet access than any other country on the continent; in fact, rates in the US are more than double…

I don’t think data that is eight years old is really relevant anymore, especially on a technical topic like this. Is there anything newer? I'd expect prices for bandwidth to decrease over time.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#223

Post by scld »

ekianjo wrote: post #209
jmyeet wrote: post #46

The whole net neutrality saga just exposed the deep regulatory capture between ISPs and the FCC (the Republican Commissioners at least). Pai's argument for repealing net neutrality was that it wasn't a Federal government concern. That was originally what prompted California to institute these rules. But suddenly it wasn't a state issue either. Weird . The US has some of the most expensive Internet access in the world…

> The US has some of the most expensive Internet access in the world. Really? Some highly developed countries have fairly expensive Internet as well. Not sure the US is much of an exception, if you consider not just the cheapest countries.

Not per megabit. It's middle of the pack. It's also like half to a quarter as dense as most Europeans areas being discussed. It's expensive in large part because of our myriad land use nightmares.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#224

Post by hansel_der »

odshoifsdhfs wrote: post #205
jtbayly wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do networks not fill up and get congested?

Yes, but the problem is on the ISP side. For example, lets assume a building with 10 apartments has guaranteed 100Mbit connection to the building. If ISP was honest, they would sell 10Mbit connection to each apartment. What they do (at least here) is sell 100Mbit to each apartment and hope their usage isn't all at the same time since it can't support it. I ended up paying more for a 200mbit connection straight to my…

oversubscription is totally normal, the ratio is a matter of discussion thou (imo good isp shifting blame for congestion events is dishonest thou.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#225

Post by brezelgoring »

RealStickman_ wrote: post #152
JJMcJ wrote: post #66

A few ISPs, like Sonic, maintain neutrality by their own policies. Then I read not only of throttling but of horrors like replacing ads on websites with different ones that pay the ISP.

That's why every website should use HTTPS.

I don't know if that would change things, they know the whole SSL Handshake by virtue of being the ISP. I'm not sure anything can save you here.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#226

Post by hansel_der »

Karunamon wrote: post #219
jaywalk wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't a consumer ISP anywhere that doesn't oversubscribe bandwidth. It makes zero sense to give a residential connection dedicated bandwidth.

Maybe regulators should look into that? Common practices or not, it’s nothing short of fraudulent to sell something you know you can’t provide.

isp contracts usually include something called an Service Level Agreement (SLA) that gives room for this sort of service degredation.

maybe there should be some discussion over statistical properties of that degredation and minimum service levels, because ppl tend to watch tv at roughly the same time.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#227

Post by hansel_der »

sambull wrote: post #207
naoqj wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the joke. People and corporations streaming HD video use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth which require more hardware capacity and peering deals. I think it's not crazy to ask that they pay a fair price for it. As someone who doesn't stream HD video I would like to have cheaper connections available if I don't want to pay for the bandwidth usage of other customers.

There are. There are 5Mbps/10Mbps connections, that while being unusable for streaming HD are FAR cheaper and usable for other services. The consumer is paying the price of what they can get out of the connection. Conversely I pay extra (higher bandwidth pipe) so I can stream more HD videos, and even extra so I can do so without a overages fee per GB after a TB. The consumer in this case just paid to have a bigger pi…

typical hd-steam (720p) is around 2Mbps

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#228

Post by monocasa »

mbg721 wrote: post #184
bsenftner wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The entire reason "Let's Go Brandon" became a thing was that the incident validated conservative complaints about big media bias. It was "Were you saying 'Boo', or 'Boo-urns'??" in real life.

Sort of. AFAICT, it had more to do with the fact that you can't drop knowingly allow f-bombs on broadcast TV without having your license taken away, so sometimes reporters will pretend they misheard something so they don't have to cut away during live interviews.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#229

Post by smachiz »

naoqj wrote: post #218
smachiz wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah. That isn't really the issue. Ballpark FMV for 1Mbps for a month is currently around $0.08/Mbps in the US at scale in carrier neutral datacenter. If you watched a Netflix HD stream all month long, it would cost maybe $1. But of course it doesn't actually cost Verizon or ATT or Cox that - Netflix almost assuredly *pays them* to carry that stream. Blaming the users is a ridiculously bad take - the issue is that the…

Increasing bandwidth in the last mile is not cheap at all.

Depends on the technology and where that limit is.

Increasing bandwidth to the cable head end or FTTN? Trivial.

Replacing DOCSIS 2 equipment with 3.2 equipment? More expensive.

Running actual FTTH? Hard, large upfront costs, but you have an asset with a 30+ year life span that’s cheaper to maintain than copper.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#230

Post by jaywalk »

bsenftner wrote: post #175
beardedetim wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been my experience as well along both sides of the axis. If you're not "Lets Go Brandon" or whatever the equivalent is on the left, you usually are reasonable and have valid opinions. Even more so, we usually share the same ideals just have different ways of getting there. There isn't huge division out there. Just two camps of dicks with most of us in the middle.

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN