Live data from Hacker News

The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

291–300 of 337 posts

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#291

The thing that is actually missing from this entire essay is competition. The biggest single reason why the USA's (and to a lesser extent Canada's) internet is shite is because of the monopolies that exist. In the EU there are similar offers for "enhanced" access, but its not speeding up/slowing down apps, but giving "free" access, as in not counting to your data cap. Instead of making the FCC stop fast lanes, the FC…

The OpenReach model doesn’t make much sense for wireless, where the market can support three competing providers (plus a ton of MVNOs) and overbuilding is necessary to provide sufficient capacity anyway. (E.g. AT&T couldn’t serve everyone with just its own cell towers.)

I think the more salient issue is the market simply doesn’t care about this stuff. As long as you can get on Facebook and instagram they are not mo rd by what’s going on behind the scenes.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#292
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the empirical record on this shows that we see more net neutrality violations by ISPs in marketplaces with high competition.[1] This is counter-intuitive but here's how it works: In a competitive marketplace ISPs have tighter margins and look for every opportunity for cost savings, so if throttling a high-bandwidth application only affects a small percentage of customers, and only a tiny tech-savvy minority…

I thought net neutrality was about ISPs trying to get netflix, facebook etc to pay them extra not to throttle. The only throttling I've heard of here in the UK (which has lots of providers and competition) is on torrenting. Are there examples of what you are talking about with zoom etc? Because as far as I can reason: if an isp throttled something like that in a high competition market, they'd lose their customers. A…

> I thought net neutrality was about ISPs trying to get netflix, facebook etc to pay them extra not to throttle.

It was mostly. Basically in the USA it costs money to peer with people, and even more money to put edge caches inside the ISP's network (because that means the ISP can't charge for peering.)

This pissed of a bunch of rich web firms, so they poured money into pro net neutrality publications. (also a lot of anti copyright stuff as well, so they didn't have to pay content creators, but thats a different topic)

In the UK, peerings is much much cheaper because of LINX and other peering exchanges. moreover, having an edge cache inside your network saves you cash as you don't need to spend as much arranging upstream peering. (It might save money on transfer between last mile and the core network, but I'm hazy on the costs there.)

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#293
Why does Stanford want everyone to have unusable congested 5G experience, instead of letting people who want more bandwidth to pay for it?

BTW is mobile networking finally turning linespeed "bandwidth" back into true bandwidth? That's a glorious victory for language!

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#294

Tacking on to this, what is the justification for charging for tethering and would net neutrality do anything about this?

The justification is that they can.

This is all marketing. All the speed tiers, all the add-ons, etc. are all marketing. There's no technical reason for any of it. 5G has huge bandwidth, and the fiber backhaul has huge bandwidth. The most that can be argued is that a saturated link needs fair queueing applied to it to give customers fair bandwidth while the company installs more capacity.

But you can't underprovision and then charge a premium for a fast lane if you are running the company on technical principles.

If you asked for justification, the carrier would say that tethering is usually used for business needs, and the increased use would be unfair to non-business users.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#295
post #4

ISPs are desperate to be part of the monetary exchange of services over their infrastructure, they've been trying to become more than "dumb pipes" for decades and virtually no one wants that. Imagine if the water company could charge you more for a glass of water than a toilet flush.

I find it interesting how nobody blinks an eyelid at the massive profits raked in by companies like Google, Facebook etc. but as soon as the ISPs that create the infrastructure that makes all this happen (and innovate massively in the process) want some piece of the cake everyone cries foul. Now I actually strongly support net neutrality and maybe ISPs don't really need a piece of the cake, but it is still interestin…

> I find it interesting how nobody blinks an eyelid at the massive profits raked in by companies like Google, Facebook etc. but as soon as the ISPs that create the infrastructure that makes all this happen (and innovate massively in the process) want some piece of the cake everyone cries foul.

The ISP did nothing to earn any of the cake beyond provide me a pipe, and I already paid for that. I'm not defending Google's profits or calling them the good guys, I'm saying my prices shouldn't change because Comcast is jealous of Facebook. If ISPs get to tax Google and Netflix, they'll just charge me more, and I don't want that. If you sell shovels, you don't get part of the gold nugget profit.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although if you come with a foreign SIM and use roaming, you circumvent the GFW automatically for some reason That's because when your SIM is in international roaming, traffic is routed by the local telco to a tunnel back to the home telco provider. This ofc decreases margins significantly (because those bytes are routed via fiber or satellite by a Transit Service) and is why roaming costs are so high. > It is also…

> Oof. You'd have to be living under a rock to not know that Google is banned in China, but I guess some tourists just aren't tech savvy, so who am I to judge. We hosted an ACM conference in 2011 in Beijing. One of my friends came, first trip to China, really smart guy just finishing up his PhD in EECS at UCB, but OMG did he mess that one up. We had to use the guest wifi in my office so he could make offline copies.…

> those. A lot of things blocked afterwards, we slowly lost more services that we had previously

Until a couple years ago, it was fairly common to smuggle VEOM, Airtel, and Ooredoo sims in much of Xinjiang and Tibet, because the Uyghur and Tibetan diaspora largely uses WhatsApp to communicate as the Uyghur diaspora is largely in the CIS, Turkey, and Pakistan and the Tibetan diaspora in India, Nepal, and the US.

> OMG did he mess that one up. We had to use the guest wifi in my office so he could make offline copies. If you aren't used to it, and don't follow China closely, you could be very technical and still be caught off guard

Oh boy! That sounds rough, but also makes sense.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d say the exact opposite. It’s clear the majority of customers here cannot make an informed decision either by way of incompetence about the technical aspects that would enable them to detect bad faith behavior on the part of ISPs, or lack of transparency, or outright lack of competition in their market. Competition does not work to increase quality if the customer cannot judge it. The entire benefits of markets an…

> It’s clear the majority of customers here cannot make an informed decision either by way of incompetence about the technical aspects that would enable them to detect bad faith behavior on the part of ISPs Unfortunately, if consumers can’t make an informed decision, then there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that the government, which is full of technically incompetent bureaucrats, is going to somehow make the rig…

> Unfortunately, if consumers can’t make an informed decision, then there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that the government, which is full of technically incompetent bureaucrats, is going to somehow make the right decision for them.

This is such utterly brain-dead individualist defeatist nonsense that I struggle to respect it as an actual position. Do you believe either the common consumers or the politicians understand vehicles? And like, even the broad topic of vehicles belies several specifics of interest to regulators like emissions and safety features. Of course they don't know all of that. They hire in people qualified to judge the effectiveness of those systems and to write the regulations that will then be enforced by agencies charged with that task.

Is this perfect? Of course not, no human system is or ever will be, but I would argue that based on the overall trajectory from the initial rollout of cars in the 1940's to the average consumer, where we started with brutally primitive machines that would kill people basically all the time, both pedestrians and their drivers/passengers, that spewed black vile smoke out of completely audio and emission unmitigated exhausts and were utterly terrifying at even their comparatively low speeds, all the way until today, when you can, as a consumer, purchase a car that manages it's own emissions within the bounds of reason, has numerous safety features to keep you alive, and can safely travel at speeds that well exceed the maximums posted on any highway without utterly flying apart, as an original Model T probably would have attempting half that speed, and you can do that all without knowing fuck shit about cars, ensured of the fact that you will get at least a decent product that will not harm you if used properly? That seems to me to be overall, quite an effective regulatory atmosphere. Not perfect, again, but quite effective. And that regulatory market is broadly practiced every day for probably hundreds if not thousands of products you have purchased without a second thought, because you don't need to think about them, because government agencies you know nothing about are working to ensure the safety of that market.

We have had this shit figured out for almost a century I would say. The fact that ISPs now operate such an utterly critical resource for our daily lives with near total absence of regulation in terms of the product they deliver, the quality of it, the usability, etc. etc. is frankly ludicrous. We're sitting here having arguments about which ISP throttles which sites worse and how to avoid them, when the solution is clearly: Do not give them the fucking option to throttle any website. If you pay for your Internet service, you should be able to access Netflix, YouTube, Mega filesharing, 4chan, Imgur and fuckin PornHub at will with zero thought to the notion that any of them will perform any worse than any other because they didn't put together a sweetheart deal with your fucking cable company.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why doesn't the monopoly employ the same cost-saving measures for even bigger margins? They would. The issue is that competition alone wouldn't fix it, because there is an information deficit. Some people will pick the lowest price and not realize that the ISP offering it is taking kickbacks from incumbent services to degrade their own competitors. And since this is always bad -- it's anti-competitive in the market…

Except I live in one of the places that has widespread competition (Utah) and can pick from one of dozens of Fiber Internet providers, including some that can provide 10Gbps service, a cable company, and even technically Starlink. How many of them are throttling content to prevent competition in this hypothetical anti-net neutrality scenario? Exactly zero. Which is evidence to me that Net Neutrality is a sham, what m…

I live on (presumedly) the other side of Utah, right by the Arizona border, and we have no competition — a single real option. It’s the best, fastest, most reliable, and cheapest internet connection I’ve had access to in my life. What’s the lesson from this? No idea. There are some good companies out there I guess?

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#299
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It turns out there's actually kind of okay competition in this space. Maybe not as much as there should be, but prices have stayed reasonable, broadband access is expanding, and people by and large don't seem bothered by data caps when they're subject to them lol. This is better attributed to you getting used to the shitty situation you, and everyone else in your country, is dealing with. Your speeds are shit and y…

I pay $50/month for 300/30 in the middle of nowhere. Symmetric gigabit is available for $80ish/month in small cities around me. Unlimited phone data is widely available and fairly priced. It's not impossible for things to be acceptable for the vast majority of use cases just because some predicted apocalyptic event which was hyped up by certain large players (and not out of the goodness of their hearts) didn't come t…

You, and everyone paying those absurd prices, is getting ripped off.

Re: The FCC needs to stop 5G fast lanes

#300
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It turns out there's actually kind of okay competition in this space. Maybe not as much as there should be, but prices have stayed reasonable, broadband access is expanding, and people by and large don't seem bothered by data caps when they're subject to them lol. This is better attributed to you getting used to the shitty situation you, and everyone else in your country, is dealing with. Your speeds are shit and y…

>Your speeds are shit and you're paying too much for them, and those "not bothered by data caps" just don't know better anymore. None of what you've listed would be fixed by net neutrality.

Sorry officer, not intimately familliar with your american laws!
Post reply on HN