I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#321

Post by pdimitar » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 1:28 PM UTC

Seriously? You are on the FCC and expect other people to fix your problems? What are you doing, playing Solitaire all day?

YOU NEED TO BE DOING STUFF RIGHT NOW, not tomorrow, not next week. Now.

Call ISPs which are against NN repeal. Tell them to pull all the strings they have available. Call senators. Do counter-lobbying, aren't you americans big fans of lobbies? I don't care what you do. DO SOMETHING. The internet is in danger.

And you come forward and tell us that we have to do something. Wow. We really are doomed.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#322

Post by pwg » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 1:36 PM UTC

hirsin wrote: post #265

thinkloop wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's wasn't obvious to me that trucking is much less energy effecient than rail. According to treehugger.com rail achieves "400 ton-miles per gallon whereas trucks currently hover around 130 ton-miles per gallon" [1]. I wonder why that would be - rubber tires vs steel-on-steel? Traffic? There isn't much traffic during the majority of a long-haul and the last few miles have to be done by truck anyway. [1] https://www.…

Braking and acceleration - once you get x tons of anything moving, it generally wants to keep moving. Trains are tens of times longer than trucks, brake significantly less often, and have a lot more horsepower for acceleration.

Lowered overall wind resistance also plays a significant part.

With Semi's, each separate truck has to endure its own wind resistance independently.

With a train, each rail car effectively drafts the car in front, producing significant reductions in wind resistance for all cars behind the locomotive.

This site (https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/parasitic-loss-reductio...) quotes wind resistance, braking, and rolling resistance as responsible for a 45% reduction in efficiency.

This site (https://www.nap.edu/read/13288/chapter/7) has a table that separates the factors out. Of the parasitic losses, aerodynamic losses (i.e., wind resistance) is responsible for consuming 53% of the motive power.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#323

Post by Brybry » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 1:38 PM UTC

Endy wrote: post #313

QAkICoU7IDNkpFu wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Break up the biggest ISP's by force.

We'd need another Teddy Roosevelt for that to happen. Unfortunately, we have Trump. And frankly I don't see politics changing from that mindset for a long time.

The Ma Bell breakup was probably started under Nixon/Ford (lawsuit filed in 1974) and finished under Reagan.

Not that it worked completely, because everyone has nearly merged back together, but it is evidence that Republican administrations aren't necessarily pro-monopoly.

A large part of the issue is that, through lobbying and franchise agreements, ISPs have locally secured their status. Even if you break them up they only become more local monopolies (which is better but not competition and still requires regulation).

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#324

Post by thisacctforreal » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 1:49 PM UTC

dingaling wrote: post #225

xpac wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portugal. https://mobile.twitter.com/rokhanna/status/92370187109244108...

As was pointed-out repeatedly yesterday, those are add-ons for mobile data. You pay your base fee ( to access anything ) and you can then add particular bundles to get flat-rated access to certain websites. Or you can just continue to pay by the MB.

I don't see Vimeo on the free video bandwidth list.

This is the exact same problem.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#325

Post by GrinningFool » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 1:53 PM UTC

ep103 wrote: post #148

RpFLCL wrote: post #16

>Reach out to the rest of the FCC now. Tell them they can’t take away internet openness without a fight. How? As this article mentions, their comment system had issues (spam and DDoS) and the only other avenue I've seen is to beg our representatives (who aren't part of the December vote) to do _something_. It was a clean and concise piece, but I was hoping that an insider would provide a new course of action. I've se…

battleforthenet.com democracy.io (EFF) <-- The same thing but via email. Not as effective as battleforthenet, but takes maybe 30 seconds to contact all of your representatives

Fill out a form, click a button and the actual hard work is done for you - via robodialing and spam. Democracy in the modern age.

Do you really think this is effective? That this lets your voice be heard?

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#326

Post by madeofpalk » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 1:57 PM UTC

taohansen wrote: post #108

throwaway5752 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're a dope if you don't vote. It's impolite to mention this, but it is not a political problem, but a Republican problem. A Democratic administration's FCC enacted Net Neutrality, a Republican one is attempting to dismantle it. Vote for Democrats at every level of government, in every election possible. This will change some day, but today the Republican party has lost its mind and morals. To be clear, I'm not cal…

both parties don't make decisions i consider sane or particularly clever yet those are the only two parties i may vote for with any chance of success. the voting system is broken by outmoded/gamed structures (gerrymandering, an electoral college), and all-or-nothing outcomes (if i vote for one candidate and they don't win, i may make no second or third choice with which then to put my voting power behind). i simply f…

I don't think anyone who thinks critically about politics finds a party they align with 100%. This is literally the definitions of the lessor of two evils: voting at an election is about finding the party you agree with _the most_, or who's downsides you can live with the most.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#327

Post by notyourday » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 2:00 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #215

notyourday wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but that should never normally happen unless the ISP is either incompetent or creating artificial scarcity for anticompetitive reasons. See Verizon and Comcast. Today. With Net Neutrality on the books. Want to bypass this congestion? Buy some PNIs. So what we have here is dilettantes talking about a how they think the world should be or is today rather than acknowledging that net neutrality stopped existing in 1995…

> See Verizon and Comcast. Today. With Net Neutrality on the books. Want to bypass this congestion? Buy some PNIs. That absolutely is a problem with the existing rules. Some people pointed that out when they were proposed. But the existing rules solve some problems, just not all of them. And you don't go forward by going backward.

Since Sprint in 1995 got away with asking others who peered with it over public exchanges for money in order not to turn down their existing peering, NN was dead.

NN does not live in reality. In reality there are so many line cards that one can put into a router/switch/linux box, there's so much space in a cabinet and there are only so many people who know how to operate in a physical world. Everyone with a little money and clue can generate a hundred gigabit per second traffic towards eyeballs behind Comcast but only those with serious money and serious clue would be able to do it with reasonable performance - Comcast/Verizon/ATT/NewFiberToEveryoneOnTheEastCoast ISP will need to prioritize physical world deployment and it would go to the one with serious money and serious clue. And since NN cannot address this, it is toast and it has always been toast.

The solution is regional ISPs and regional networks - breaking up franchise agreements with Comcast and Verizon that your little town has, getting ROW via cities/towns, leveraging small electric companies ROWS, etc.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#328

Post by marcosdumay » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 2:01 PM UTC

sambe wrote: post #319

loup-vaillant wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait a minute, the opposite of net neutrality is called "net freedom "? This is sick (the lack of net neutrality is more likely to reduce freedoms than to promote them). If you remotely support net neutrality, please never use that term again. This is self defeating.

I'm pro-net neutrality and I'm against dishonest marketing, but I think overall it's important to take the higher ground and remain intellectually honest. Doing otherwise results in a mud-slinging contest. Existing regulations are a restriction on the freedom of service providers. That is undeniable. There many cases where we restrict freedoms for the greater good, but I don't like to pretend we are not doing so in t…

> Existing regulations are a restriction on the freedom of service providers.

Then go ahead and call it "corporate freedom". The network isn't getting any more free without neutrality.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#329

Post by mgkimsal » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 2:07 PM UTC

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #49

netsec_burn wrote: post #43

Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane? Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We'v…

> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too preemptive' to outlaw it?" But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason). > "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now." But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.

> proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.

But the reply was in reply to Ajit's position that "we don't know what will happen because we don't have them".

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#330

Post by specialist » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 2:35 PM UTC

pdimitar wrote: post #321

Seriously? You are on the FCC and expect other people to fix your problems? What are you doing, playing Solitaire all day? YOU NEED TO BE DOING STUFF RIGHT NOW , not tomorrow, not next week. Now. Call ISPs which are against NN repeal. Tell them to pull all the strings they have available. Call senators. Do counter-lobbying, aren't you americans big fans of lobbies? I don't care what you do. DO SOMETHING. The internet…

Alas, that's not how policy making works. She doesn't have the votes. But if you/we bring the heat, the other commissioners will see the light. Then opponents of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness will wait until the heat cools off, and then try again while no ones looking.

Been there, been done like that.