FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet • Hacker News Board

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#301

Post by politician » Fri, May 16, 2014, 12:08 AM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #251

politician wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Why does the water supplied to my home come in clear and polluted varieties? - Why does the electricity supplied to my office come in normal power and brown power versions? Oh, wait.

Are you making the argument that the existing QoS for power and water are both optimal? If so, for whom are they optimal? Many people purchase bottled drinking water via delivery service b/c they deem the quality of tap water unacceptable for consumption. Many people invest in UPS units, backup generators, etc. b/c they deem the reliability of power from the grid unacceptable. Imagine if the power grid had an additio…

Many people purchase Google Fiber for 900Gb/s down b/c they deem the quality of Comcast's 25Gb/s down as unacceptable.

Are you making the counter argument that 25Gb/s is optimal given the reality that we're living in a time where 900Gb/s down is attainable except for the lack of shareholder will preventing its deployment?

I've built my own modems. I witnessed the stagnation around 2400 baud. I'm unimpressed by your suggestion that commercially-available bandwidth is at an "optimal" speed.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#302

Post by DigitalSea » Fri, May 16, 2014, 12:11 AM UTC

There is no way in hell this can go ahead. Also, minor nitpick, but this is a rather misleading post. Nobody approved anything, the vote was merely a green light to go ahead with the proposal, nothing has been approved just yet, it's not that easy.

Some of my "favourite" takeaways:

He stressed consumers would be guaranteed a baseline of service Just like your internet provider says they don't throttle torrent traffic, but a few major ISP's have been caught out doing just that. The same is going to happen if this proposal goes ahead. Unless people breaking the rules are reported, they won't be caught and where will the resources for reporting infringer's come from?

Wheeler's proposal is part of a larger "net neutrality" plan that forbids Internet service providers from outright blocking Web sites I have no doubt in my mind, the reform Wheeler is pushing for is merely a door and there are definitely bigger things in store once the flood gates have been opened. The pressure will be too great to close them again.

The agency said it had developed a "multifaceted dispute resolution process" on enforcement and would consider appointing an "ombudsman" to oversee the process. The FCC has a shady history of resolving disputes, this is merely hot air to make the reforms not sound so bad. What happens when the resolution process breaks or is overwhelmed and can't cope with the number of infringements taking place?

As for a handful of key entities controlling what happens with the pipeline, China is a classic example of what happens when you let a sole entity dictate something like the Internet and even then, the great firewall doesn't stop everything.

Then there are questions about conflicts of interest. What happens when say a company like Comcast owns a stake in a company like Netflix and conspire to extort a competitor like Hulu (asking for exorbitant amounts of cash for speed). Who sets the price of these fast lanes and will prices be capped to prevent extortion? Too flawed to work.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#303

Post by rayiner » Fri, May 16, 2014, 12:22 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #295

pdonis wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the terms are unattractive enough such that only the big de-facto monopolies are willing to take the deal. Which means that these are effectively sweetheart deals for the big de facto monopolies, since without them there would certainly be an incentive for smaller competitors to enter the market. That may not have been the intent of the municipal governments, so "sweetheart deal" may not be the best descriptive ter…

Yes, there is something of Br'er Rabbit in giant incumbent telcos' complaining about regulations. "Please mister please don't use the complicated franchise agreement my lawyer sent you that is actually written to conform exactly to my M&Ps!"

Did you read the Wilmington agreement? What in there looks like it was written by a Comcast lawyer?

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#304

Post by rayiner » Fri, May 16, 2014, 12:37 AM UTC

drewcrawford wrote: post #285

rayiner wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask yourself: why does Austin already have three FTTN ISP's when San Francisco doesn't? It wasn't because they had a higher level of regulation than other cities, it was because they had less.

Another nice narrative that doesn't fit with experimental data. In spite of the fact that one would imagine a Texas city to be less regulated than a California city, it isn't really that simple. In Austin a strong majority of the utility poles are owned by the city. The ones that aren't are largely owned by AT&T, which complains very loudly that it is required to sell access to anyone who wants it at a price dictated…

The fact Austin is less regulated isn't a hypothetical. We know Austin is less regulated than most cities. Its a Google Fiber city, which means it agreed to ditch most of the regulations, like build out requirements, that other cities impose. Google doesn't bring fiber to a city without massive concessions. Kansas City agreed to get the permits through in five days. Provo sold Google a $30 million fiber network for $1.

Maybe pole attachments have something to do with it too, but lots of cities own their poles but don't have competing fiber services.

See: http://crosscut.com/2014/03/04/business/118993/google-fiber-...

Also re Portland: http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2023420101_b...

The last article is a must-read. This is the kind of person standing in the way of fiber deployment, as much as any cable lobbyist.

"That’s a nice deal where it’s available. But the company has been slow to expand its coverage area in Kansas City and vague about if and when it will reach some working-class areas, according to a report in The Kansas City Star.

Cities really have one opportunity to ensure that all of their residents will be served by these next generation broadband services.

That’s during the initial franchise negotiations, when cities can press for universal coverage in return for the special rules and public property they’re offering up.

Once cities provide these handouts, they don’t have much leverage. They’ll end up bowing and scraping and hoping that Uncle Google throws a bit more fiber their way, someday."

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#305

Post by mwsherman » Fri, May 16, 2014, 12:42 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #289

mwsherman wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A CDN is a route, is my contention. Its value is being closer to the user. CDNs are a good thing. But they are networks like any other, the difference being that the nodes are smart enough for to re-request data they already have. CDN nodes should be understood as caching routers. Being closer to the user – the CDN’s value – rests in having a better position vis-à-vis the last-mile network. A better position vis-à-vi…

> A CDN is a route, is my contention. Its value is being closer to the user. Being an endpoint that is closer to the user is not the same as being a route between that endpoint (or any other endpoint) and the user. > CDN nodes should be understood as caching routers. In some respects, yes. But in other important respects, no. For example, CDN nodes do not route traffic that does not have that node as either a source…

A new CDN node is a new privileged route. An existing CDN node is not a new privileged route.

> CDN nodes do not route traffic that does not have that node as either a source or a destination.

Correct. That is true of any router.

Netflix did buy a new route, replacing the one they were previously buying from Cogent.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#306

Post by ajtaylor » Fri, May 16, 2014, 12:47 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #219

mortenjorck wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. That's 120 days to make Title II a household word. Broadband's current classification as an information service, as if it's some sort of MovieFone for the 21st century, is so far removed from reality that the public should be in an uproar about it. Verizon itself has sought to classify its fiber buildouts under Title II so it can get fixed-rate access to existing right-of-way infrastructure, [1] on the technicali…

You really do not want broadband classified under Title II. You will get the war you want, but it will be a war everyone loses. Why do you think DSL is such a ghetto? It's because it's subject to a higher level of regulations, and nobody wants to invest money in such a highly-regulated industry: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Veriz... . Classifying cable broadband under Title II will definitel…

If this is true, then why do so many other countries around the world have both actual competition AND much more compelling products than the US? These other ISPs are also commercial entities and yet they aren't filing for bankruptcy left, right and center so clearly it's commercially possible.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#307

Post by chimeracoder » Fri, May 16, 2014, 12:54 AM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #271

politician wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Comcast spent... Absolute dollars isn't as interesting as a trend. According to the National Cable Telecommunications Association, expenditure on broadband infrastructure has declined over the past 5 years. http://www.vox.com/2014/5/12/5711082/big-cable-says-broadban... > We compare quite favorably to countries like Canada and Australia. According to a 2013 report by Ookla, US ranks 31st in download speeds. http://…

> We compare quite favorably to countries like Canada and Australia. According to a 2013 report by Ookla, US ranks 31st in download speeds. You know you didn't disagree with him at all, right? Your source shows the US beating out Canada comfortably, and Australia overwhelmingly. The US is not going to match the #1 and #2 on your list, Hong Kong and Singapore, ever , because it is trivial to wire up a single dense cit…

> The US is not going to match the #1 and #2 on your list, Hong Kong and Singapore, ever, because it is trivial to wire up a single dense city with weak democratic red tape.

But even the most densely populated areas in the US have terrible Internet access. A small portion of New York City has FiOS, but the vast majority has Comcast or Time Warner, and those are about$60 for 20Mbps advertised[0].

I'm willing to give Singapore the fact that it's a smaller government[1], but the bottleneck in providing better Internet access in NYC is not the NYC government.

[0] I am in midtown Manhattan, probably the most densely populated area in the country, and I am getting 700 KB/s as I type this, so I'm not even getting anything close to what's advertised.

[1] And the population is about 2/3 the size of NYC

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#308

Post by rayiner » Fri, May 16, 2014, 1:03 AM UTC

opendais wrote: post #281

rayiner wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/13/366988/over-half... . We subsidize Utilities & Telecommunications roughly equally via tax breaks. Uh, please read the methodology of the linked article. Those aren't direct tax subsidies. It's a made-up number based on effective tax rates below 35%. By your logic, the government is heavily subsidizing Apple & Google, which pay much less than the 35% rate. > Please explain…

> Uh, please read the methodology of the linked article. Those aren't direct tax subsidies. It's a made-up number based on effective tax rates below 35%. By your logic, the government is heavily subsidizing Apple & Google, which pay much less than the 35% rate. Fine, we'll use your definitions. That's cool. > Sweden putting in $900 million is like the U.S. putting in $27 billion. http://www.pcworld.com/article/242713…

> Fine, we'll use your definitions. That's cool.

Under your definition, Apple received an $18 billion subsidy between 2009-2011. What did the public get in return for that subsidy? Is that a dumb question? Yes, because your definition of subsidy makes no sense.

> http://www.pcworld.com/article/242713/fcc_votes_to_end_telep.... "The FCC will cap the broadband fund at US$4.5 billion a year, the current budget of the USF high-cost program, funded by a tax on telephone bills." Over 6 years.

USF is not a subsidy to the telecom industry, because it is funded by a tax on the industry. It just shifts money from certain telecom customers to others.

> And like any other market, Exelon isn't having trouble turning a profit from regulation

Excelon is a terrible example of utilities turning a profit, because it really isn't one. When the energy industry was deregulated, the regulated electric monopoly in Illinois, Commonwealth Edison, divested itself of its generation capacity. This entity became Excelon, and it is not regulated S a public utility the way ComEd is.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#309

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 16, 2014, 1:05 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #291

rayiner wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. is not far behind Sweden in global average connection speeds: http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/akamai-soti-q413.pdf?WT.mc_i... (Page 19, Figure 20). Sweden directly subsidized deployment of fiber in rural areas: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-w... . It also required municipalities to build certain infrastructure, which is something the U.S. federal government lacks the power to do.

Sweden directly subsidized deployment of fiber... Yeah, so did USA. The only difference was that Sweden actually got the fiber they subsidized. We've been over this before.

[deleted]

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#310

Post by briandear » Fri, May 16, 2014, 1:08 AM UTC

julien_c wrote: post #255

briandear wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nationalizing anything nearly always leads to lower quality. Compare the toll roads in France to the "free" autobahns in Germany. The French toll routes are far better maintained. Another case is health care, compare an NHS experience with a hip replacement in the UK with a hip replacement in France (or the US.) In the UK, the waiting list is measured in 6+ months, while in the US or France, it is almost immediate. F…

Hip replacement is most definitely nationalized in France.

I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. The bills are paid by the social insurance (and mutuels if you have it,) however the providers are mostly private.