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

FCC rescinds claim that AT&T and Verizon violated net neutrality

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: FCC rescinds claim that AT&T and Verizon violated net neutrality

#51

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

awj wrote: post #40
p4lindromica wrote: post #23

Meanwhile, AT&T launched a traffic shaping program in December called Smart Stream that mobile customers are automatically opted in to. The program downgrades videos watched on their network to 480p quality.

So long as they do that with all videos regardless of source, what's the problem? It's annoying, possibly, but it doesn't really restrict the open flow of information that made the Internet great.

If they do it without informing me as a customer, it's more than just annoying, it's also unethical.

Re: FCC rescinds claim that AT&T and Verizon violated net neutrality

#52

Post by WorldMaker »

mwsherman wrote: post #45
giarc wrote: post #3

>AT&T and Verizon allow their own video services (DirecTV and Go90, respectively) to stream on their mobile networks without counting against customers' data caps, while charging other video providers for the same data cap exemptions. Isn't that the anti definition of net neutrality?

In this narrow case, I believe there may be a claim that those bits are not “Internet” service. They are private network traffic, within their respective networks.

They are still TCP/IP and/or UDP/IP packets running over the "internet protocol". At what point do you draw the fences between "private network" and the rest of the internet?

Re: FCC rescinds claim that AT&T and Verizon violated net neutrality

#53

Post by DenisM »

There's an interesting workaround for the Net Neutrality problem that Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, et al can implement.

They could create a industry standard for testing mobile internet speed against CDNs of all major video providers, and then use their respective video services to ingrain it into customers minds that they have to use this when shopping for a mobile internet provider.

This might just create enough pressure on the cell providers for one of them to break the ranks and start treating all such traffic with respect.

Re: FCC rescinds claim that AT&T and Verizon violated net neutrality

#54

Post by WorldMaker »

equalarrow wrote: post #9
e40 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I wonder how all those people feel that didn't vote because it doesn't matter, they're both the same ?

This only matters - voting in the presidential elections - in the red states. If you're a liberal, progressive, futurist, etc, and you're living in states like CA or NY or OR, then statistically speaking, those states are pretty much gonna go democrat regardless. So your vote counts 'less' there. What is needed is a bunch of these people to move to swing states where the vote really matters. Places like OH, FL, etc.…

You could still live in CA and have more of an impact on the elections by moving out to a more rural part of the state... House of Representatives districts matter as much as state lines.

At this point it isn't even really so much blue-state versus red-state: it's a lot closer to city versus rural/country.

Re: FCC rescinds claim that AT&T and Verizon violated net neutrality

#55

Post by kej »

DenisM wrote: post #53

There's an interesting workaround for the Net Neutrality problem that Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, et al can implement. They could create a industry standard for testing mobile internet speed against CDNs of all major video providers, and then use their respective video services to ingrain it into customers minds that they have to use this when shopping for a mobile internet provider. This might just create enough pressure…

That's pretty much what Netflix does with fast.com, only just for themselves. Opening that up so that other providers could use the fast.com name with their own backends is an interesting idea.

Re: FCC rescinds claim that AT&T and Verizon violated net neutrality

#56

Post by WorldMaker »

byuu wrote: post #35
ensignavenger wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really doesn't matter very much what opinion the President has of the electoral college, the President doesn't have much say in the matter. Perhaps the President could use their position to push for change, but that would be the extent of it.

I'm aware that it would require a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. Was just taking an easy jab at his absolutely blatant hypocrisy between 2012 and 2016.

An alternative might be a collection of states banding together to solve how they send members to the electoral college. "First past the post" versus "representative" (versus fancier, better options, like run-off voting) is a state's right under the constitution.

Current first-past-the-post states are incentivized under the current regime to stay that way because it makes for more opportunity to be treated as a "ballroom belle" ("swing state") each election cycle, which brings money and attention to the state it might not ever see otherwise.

It's possible, though sadly unlikely, you could fix the current regime by fixing things from the bottom up at the state legislature level, one state at a time if need be.

Re: FCC rescinds claim that AT&T and Verizon violated net neutrality

#57

Post by mbrumlow »

lisivka wrote: post #48
dragonwriter wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it certainly seems to violate the Open Internet Order. The FCC is stopping enforcing the order because the new FCC leadership intends to rescind the order and opposes the order's goals and mechanisms. Net neutrality is dead.

I see no violation of the net neutrality. LAN traffic is completely free. Wired traffic is cheaper than wireless. Local traffic is cheaper at AWS than WAN traffic. CDN traffic is cheaper than hoster traffic. And so on. Price is part of the market competition.

I don't think you understand this at all.

Yes, different modes of transportation cost more. The problem is charging different services a different rate on that mode of transportation.

Sure, a wireless network can cost more, and people can pay more. What net neutrality is about protection from being charged more for bits coming from a competitor. This protection is both good for the customer and the market competition. Without it in fact you can't have market competition. All you will end up with his monopolies. I personally think it is high time that internet access be regulated as a utility and decoped from any secondary media businesses.

A wireless customer is paying for wireless access and should not have any bill charge difference for the bandwidth they paid for regardless of the backend source.

The best analogy I can come up with is this. There are 2 major stores in your town that sale widgets.

Company A owns a single widget store. Company B owns a single widget store and a toll road.

This toll road is the ONLY way to get to company A's and company B's widget store. This is mostly due to lobbying and unfair protracted company B takes part in to ensure that there are no other roads. The problem is that company B stops and ask each driver where they are going when they enter the toll road. They charge one price to cars who are going to company B's widget store and a higher price to cars going to company A's widget store. Both drivers will be on the toll road for the same time as its only a small strip of road, but still the only road.

You do see the problem right?

Re: FCC rescinds claim that AT&T and Verizon violated net neutrality

#58

Post by jandrese »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #11

Is there any way, as a citizen and consumer, to stop Pai? Or get him fired from FCC? Will writing Congress help?

About the only way that could happen in the next two years is if Trump dissolves the FCC as a wasteful impediment to business.

Re: FCC rescinds claim that AT&T and Verizon violated net neutrality

#59

Post by SkyMarshal »

e40 wrote: post #6
shatteredvisage wrote: post #5

I fear we can't stop what's happening. I miss days when I could afford political ignorance.

Yeah, I wonder how all those people feel that didn't vote because it doesn't matter, they're both the same ?

>Yeah, I wonder how all those people feel that didn't vote because it doesn't matter, they're both the same?

Nothing at all I'm sure. I doubt that demographic knows or cares about net neutrality.

Re: FCC rescinds claim that AT&T and Verizon violated net neutrality

#60

Post by lisivka »

mbrumlow wrote: post #57
lisivka wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see no violation of the net neutrality. LAN traffic is completely free. Wired traffic is cheaper than wireless. Local traffic is cheaper at AWS than WAN traffic. CDN traffic is cheaper than hoster traffic. And so on. Price is part of the market competition.

I don't think you understand this at all. Yes, different modes of transportation cost more. The problem is charging different services a different rate on that mode of transportation. Sure, a wireless network can cost more, and people can pay more. What net neutrality is about protection from being charged more for bits coming from a competitor. This protection is both good for the customer and the market competition…

Yep, I see the problem. I just telling that it is not a FCC role to fight monopolies.

As long as traffic coming in and out at same rate for every provider, FCC should relax and watch.

Moreover, I know information theory, so I see no problem at all for hacker like me. I will just use uuencode/uudecode.

Post reply on HN