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

Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

juliareda.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 181 posts

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#71

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

Swizec wrote: post #58
heinrichhartman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not likely going to happen nore is it a sensible thing to ask for. As an ISP how would you _guarantee_ the bandwidth for each endpoint? You would have to provision for the maximal capacity all over your network. Given that most people only utilize their channel 1% of the time, this is a huge waste! What's sensible to ask ISPs to do is: (a) Communicate historically experienced bandwith at each region (b) Provid…

> As an ISP how would you _guarantee_ the bandwidth for each endpoint? When I still lived in Slovenia, I had 20/20 FTTH. Fiber went directly into a router in my bedroom. My bandwidth was always exactly 20/20. No matter what. Now I have Comcast. Speedtest says I get 80/6. On Friday and Saturday evenings Netflix and Facebook and many other things often experience issues. Now I can't confirm any of this. If you run spee…

> My bandwidth was always exactly 20/20. No matter what.

This can't possibly be true. The ISP providing the service can only guarantee a particular speed to the boarder of their network.

Once you connect to a service not hosted by your ISP they can't guarantee anything.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#72

Post by nitrogen »

sliverstorm wrote: post #61
heinrichhartman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not likely going to happen nore is it a sensible thing to ask for. As an ISP how would you _guarantee_ the bandwidth for each endpoint? You would have to provision for the maximal capacity all over your network. Given that most people only utilize their channel 1% of the time, this is a huge waste! What's sensible to ask ISPs to do is: (a) Communicate historically experienced bandwith at each region (b) Provid…

You would have to provision for the maximal capacity all over your network. Given that most people only utilize their channel 1% of the time, this is a huge waste! Agreed, everybody loves the idea of fixed allocation, but never seem to consider how much that costs. If you could buy overprovisioned 25mbps @ $50/mo, or fixed allocation 25mbps @ $5,000/mo, which do you think most people would go for...

That is not what transit actually costs though.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#73

Post by komali2 »

reitanqild wrote: post #70
soci wrote: post #63

As always, devil is in the details. If you look at the fine print in the published "Guidelines for implementing Net Neutratily" [1] linked in the article you will see that there are 3 exceptions to the rule (a,b,c). Being "c" the one that should fear us most: EXCEPTIONS a) "comply with Union legislative acts (...) -> meaning that a court order can change Net Neutrality, hmmm ok. b) preserve the integrity and security…

IMO, IANAL > -> meaning that a court order can change Net Neutrality, hmmm ok. It would be weird for a court to order anyone to break net neutrality. > -> meaning that in order to guarantee the security of the network Net Neutrality may be avoided. I'm so-so on this one. The intention here seems to be to allow (D)DOS attack mitigation etc. > -> Meaning that ISPs can throttle specific categories of traffic at their ow…

"Comcast video streaming service is not in the same category as Netflix, Hulu because...."

Back to square 1.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#74

Post by WilliamDhalgren »

soci wrote: post #63

As always, devil is in the details. If you look at the fine print in the published "Guidelines for implementing Net Neutratily" [1] linked in the article you will see that there are 3 exceptions to the rule (a,b,c). Being "c" the one that should fear us most: EXCEPTIONS a) "comply with Union legislative acts (...) -> meaning that a court order can change Net Neutrality, hmmm ok. b) preserve the integrity and security…

A legislative act is not an act of the court - that'd be a judicial act - but of the parliament ie a law; that's the legislative body. Ofc a regulation needs to comply with laws; how else is a legal state supposed to work? And afaik traffic shaping done in a content-neutral way is network neutral; for it favors no particular provider. "Provided that equivalent categories of traffic are treated equally" is quite limiting.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#75

Post by soci »

reitanqild wrote: post #70
soci wrote: post #63

As always, devil is in the details. If you look at the fine print in the published "Guidelines for implementing Net Neutratily" [1] linked in the article you will see that there are 3 exceptions to the rule (a,b,c). Being "c" the one that should fear us most: EXCEPTIONS a) "comply with Union legislative acts (...) -> meaning that a court order can change Net Neutrality, hmmm ok. b) preserve the integrity and security…

IMO, IANAL > -> meaning that a court order can change Net Neutrality, hmmm ok. It would be weird for a court to order anyone to break net neutrality. > -> meaning that in order to guarantee the security of the network Net Neutrality may be avoided. I'm so-so on this one. The intention here seems to be to allow (D)DOS attack mitigation etc. > -> Meaning that ISPs can throttle specific categories of traffic at their ow…

> Note that the law is very clear that this only is allowed "provided that equivalent categories of traffic are treated equally."

They can, for instance, slow down P2P traffic. What do you think about that?

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#76

Post by WilliamDhalgren »

komali2 wrote: post #73
reitanqild wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, IANAL > -> meaning that a court order can change Net Neutrality, hmmm ok. It would be weird for a court to order anyone to break net neutrality. > -> meaning that in order to guarantee the security of the network Net Neutrality may be avoided. I'm so-so on this one. The intention here seems to be to allow (D)DOS attack mitigation etc. > -> Meaning that ISPs can throttle specific categories of traffic at their ow…

"Comcast video streaming service is not in the same category as Netflix, Hulu because...." Back to square 1.

Nope; that would simply be challenged in court.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#77

Post by smsm42 »

headmelted wrote: post #30

It encourages me to see that the European court at least has some people on it that seem to understand that net neutrality is in fact a human rights issue. And this is why Brexit is so heart-breaking. I'm surrounded by people in my personal life who think it's a fantastic idea, but they're not the most... informed? Likewise for local politicians. (Side note to my rant: I have this theory that the rise of the iPhone,…

> Yes, I would rather have decisions made by people in Brussels that understand what they're doing.

That requires having people in Brussels who understand what they're doing - at least better than local politicians. But I'm not sure how exactly you ensure that. If we assume you are right that the people around you (excepting you, of course) are woefully misinformed and so are local politicians, where would the enlightened folks in Brussels come from, who would elect and appoint them? If you plan to keep the democracy around and not replace it with absolute monarchy with people as well informed as yourself at the helm (how do you ensure that btw?), I don't see how exactly that may work.

It is a great delusion that democratic mechanisms and limited federalized government are the way to put the best people on top and manage the system most efficiently. They are not. They are the safety valve to mitigate the effect of so-so and worse people being on top. And this mechanism is necessary because there's no viable solution so far that can identify "best" people (whatever that may mean, we have no idea for that either) and put them on top.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#78

Post by WilliamDhalgren »

soci wrote: post #75
reitanqild wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, IANAL > -> meaning that a court order can change Net Neutrality, hmmm ok. It would be weird for a court to order anyone to break net neutrality. > -> meaning that in order to guarantee the security of the network Net Neutrality may be avoided. I'm so-so on this one. The intention here seems to be to allow (D)DOS attack mitigation etc. > -> Meaning that ISPs can throttle specific categories of traffic at their ow…

> Note that the law is very clear that this only is allowed "provided that equivalent categories of traffic are treated equally." They can, for instance, slow down P2P traffic. What do you think about that?

comcast could in the US, and won in court. Despite US regulation being seen as quite robust.

By this text, they'd need to show it was an exceptional and temporary necessity to deal with congestion.

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#79

Post by [deleted] »

whybroke wrote: post #62
markonthewall wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are candy-bars to make you happy, just like the EHRC is keeping the leftists in line while we slowly shift toward an ordoliberal paradigm at the european level. For countries like France, Italy and even Germany, that means social regression and harmonisation by the bottom. >Yes, I would rather have decisions made by people in Brussels that understand what they're doing. Yay structural unemployment in the eurozo…

Intriguing but 3 questions: How could shifting more towards Ordoliberalism (=government regulation to maximize competition plus a social safety net) be a bad thing? Quality of life is rather high in Germany after all. Is there in fact evidence that unemployment is intentionally maintained in order to suppress inflation? Even if your assertions are true, how would Brexit address any of these things and generally how w…

[deleted]

Re: Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

#80

Post by smsm42 »

nitrogen wrote: post #67
cookiecaper wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It encourages me to see that the European court at least has some people on it that seem to understand that net neutrality is in fact a human rights issue. If everything is a human right, nothing is. At this point, what's the difference between a "human right" and a nice thing? >Yes, I would rather have decisions made by people in Brussels that understand what they're doing. The thing about centralized government is…

Human right: neutral communications Nice thing: iPhone 6+ Human right: freedom of movement Nice thing: Maserati See the difference? --- As for your second part about localization of politics, the tyranny of the majority is much more severe in hyper-local settings. Global issues like human rights cannot be entrusted to local governments whose local majorities are prone to divisiveness and discrimination.

> Global issues like human rights cannot be entrusted to local governments

Who they can be entrusted to? There's a lot of countries with severe human rights issues, and I don't see many examples of super-governmental bodies having much progress in fixing them unless local government is on board with it. In fact, it's almost always impossible to do without local government participation.

Post reply on HN