FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#361

Post by gergles » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:03 AM UTC

nullrouted wrote: post #338

Dylan16807 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part are they out of compliance with? The requirement that traffic be balanced is nonsensical. In a logical sense, all packets in a connection should be 'billed' to the initiator. Raw data rates are a terrible proxy for this, and shouldn't be used at all. So in the case of Netflix, Verizon is responsible for about 99% of the traffic and the only party that should even think about charging for the interconnect i…

You answered your own question, the balanced traffic. I don't agree with it either but I'm just stating the facts. However I'm not sure where you get the 99% or anything like that. If I'm Verizon and I own the last mile to the eyeballs you want then I can set my policies to benefit me, which they have. However they aren't throttling and Title II will do nothing about the peering issue or the policies they have set ar…

That's not at all true. Title II means that peering pricing and agreements now fall under the FCC's purview for "reasonableness", which means that the FCC can step in at some future point and make Verizon knock this shit off.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#362

Post by deciplex » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:10 AM UTC

Alupis wrote: post #306

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He got a 3/2 split on the redefinition of broadband with one of the yeas publicly admitting that she would have rather seen 100Mbit as the threshold. It stands to reason that this will pass too with the current committee makeup. If the GOP wins 2016, however, the future may not be so bright once they install their pro-business people and fix all of this "Socialist" claptrap.

> If the GOP wins 2016, however, the future may not be so bright Can we please stop trying to make this a "GOP is evil and hates America" and "DEM is right and loves America" thing? The GOP standpoint is to put policy in place that naturally overtime encourages small business to bring competition to the bigger guys. The problem with this plan is it takes time and people want an immediate result. That's not "hating am…

Can you point to some specific policies that support the idea that the GOP will encourage competition from smaller players against entrenched interests? I mean, I don't think the Democrats are much better on that front, mind you, but they're the ones supporting Net Neutrality, while Republicans in Congress are trying to ban the FCC from doing this, and Net Neutrality is very much about encouraging competition from smaller players in the market.

And for that matter, maybe they don't 'hate America', but it's awfully hard to tell sometimes, what with Sarah Palin's 'Hit List' of abortion doctors, and the keen interest they take in who can and can't get married, and pretty regularly making the poor out to be villains somehow, etc etc. I suppose if you you're only counting white, Christian conservatives, then Republicans don't hate America. Otherwise, it's a tough sell.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#363

Post by sparaker » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:13 AM UTC

Good to see someone make an effort in this regard.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#364

Post by alexryan » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:17 AM UTC

frostirosti wrote: post #19

mikegioia wrote: post #6

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, wh…

Tom Wheeler has really outdone himself with this announcement. It'll apply to mobile networks as well! Turns out this dingo knows how to stand up for what's right! I know it's early but this is a great step forward.

Big mistake. Government regulation kills innovation.

Do you really want the technology sector to end up looking like the healthcare system or the state run education system? Everything government touches turns to crap.

To believe that government regulation with make anything better is not very intelligent.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#365

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:18 AM UTC

wnevets wrote: post #354

EpicEng wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not though because it changes nothing. The government can already stop traffic via a court order. Besides, the FCC is not a legislative body. A set of rules which allowed, for example, unimpeded access to child pornography would never be allowed, nor should it. Net neutrality can exist alongside the laws which govern what is and is not ok to do on the internet.

Does the FCC currently have rules that allow the blocking of "illegal" traffic?

The FCC currently has no rules on blocking, so providers can freely block legal and illegal traffic.

(The FCC adopted non-blocking rules for lawful content and applications in the previous Open Internet Order that was struck down by the courts.)

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#366

Post by ikeboy » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:20 AM UTC

aeturnum wrote: post #333

ikeboy wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm against net neutrality. To me it looks like more regulation for not enough gain. I don't see why we should stop the free market; if one internet provider is doing things you don't like, another one will open and the consumer can change to that one if they care. I also feel that companies should have a right to provide some websites at higher speeds. There will always be a trade off; perhaps you could get cheaper…

I'd argue that there are lots of anecdotal examples that suggest the US internet market is stagnant. Our speeds compare poorly to other countries as do our costs. The sudden increases in speed that ISPs roll out whenever Google Fiber moves into an area seem like strong evidence that the ISPs are delaying service upgrades as much as possible. There have already been examples of ISPs throttling certain protocols or end…

This has absolutely nothing to do with absolute internet speeds, just with relative speeds.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#367

Post by rtpg » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:20 AM UTC

alexryan wrote: post #364

frostirosti wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tom Wheeler has really outdone himself with this announcement. It'll apply to mobile networks as well! Turns out this dingo knows how to stand up for what's right! I know it's early but this is a great step forward.

Big mistake. Government regulation kills innovation. Do you really want the technology sector to end up looking like the healthcare system or the state run education system? Everything government touches turns to crap. To believe that government regulation with make anything better is not very intelligent.

yeah, really ruined all those wonderful trust in the 1900's. Really hate cheap steel.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#368

Post by usefulcat » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:21 AM UTC

alexryan wrote: post #364

frostirosti wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tom Wheeler has really outdone himself with this announcement. It'll apply to mobile networks as well! Turns out this dingo knows how to stand up for what's right! I know it's early but this is a great step forward.

Big mistake. Government regulation kills innovation. Do you really want the technology sector to end up looking like the healthcare system or the state run education system? Everything government touches turns to crap. To believe that government regulation with make anything better is not very intelligent.

> Everything government touches turns to crap.

By that extremely simplistic logic, we should have no laws at all.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#369

Post by kordless » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:21 AM UTC

This thread is old, and has tons of comments. I searched for "paid prioritization" to see if anyone else had the thought I just did about what may be happening here. I don't believe anyone has yet, so either I'm wrong about my assertion or I'm the first to post. :)

> These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization

'Prioritize' means arranging things in order of their relative importance. Paid prioritization means arranging delivery of goods (Internet services for example) by order of the relative amount you charge for things that are important to you. Revenue, for example. Or no revenue, more specifically.

My gut says that free Internet should be a basic human right. Period. Nobody should be able to charge for it. I'm not sure how in the hell we're going to put that into practice though. I'm thinking about it.

As for compute services, well, those aren't free to run. And those compute jobs require bandwidth to complete. Should those be free? I think not. Should someone be allowed to use their 'free' allowance of Internet when it takes away from the compute services interconnects? No.

I could be off on a wrong tangent, so I'll just stop now.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#370

Post by ikeboy » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:22 AM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #318

ikeboy wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you want a free market or not? I don't understand how forcing companies to provide transparency data is not regulation. How is this any better in your eyes than forcing them to treat all data the same? I explained this in my other comment so I'll just paste it here: >I did say I'm not opposed to all regulation. Free markets only work perfectly with perfect information, so I support almost any regulation that's ab…

Allowing corporations to throttle traffic, while forcing them to be public about what they throttle, seems like an idea that would work in theory but at the same time quite taxing on the consumer. Click-through EULAs are all public, but how many people read them? It just seems like a business practice that ISPs will exploit and obfuscate, and most customers will sign on to them not knowing exactly how or why their da…

If customers don't care enough, that's also a choice. Apparently enough people care about this to make all this media and petition noise; those people could care enough to look up the info. Probably the EFF or such would come out with a helpful infographic showing the Good ISPs vs the Bad ones.