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

FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 169 posts

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#81

Post by acd10j »

bashinator wrote: post #43
Alupis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for net neutrality, but 2 of the 3 things you listed were never going to be "protected" by net neutrality laws. Which highlights the problem with what Net Neutrality morphed into - it became something that meant everything and anything - not just "dumb pipes" like it originated as. Ask 3 different people what Net Neutrality means and you'll get 3 different answers. How do you legislate that and make everyone…

I'm not positive that this is an example, but it seems like it must be. Watching Netflix through Comcast's Xfinity box does not count against your data cap. Watching the same Netflix on the same TV over the same pipe using a computer instead, does.

Yes, It is definitely a Net Neutrality violation, This type of zero rated discriminatory plans are illegal in some countries like in India.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#82

Post by neoromantique »

Alupis wrote: post #56
superkuh wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$10 per 10GB threshold over 1 TB on a 80/10 connection that's $95 month including the now $14 modem rental fee. Sometimes $50 in fees. I refuse to monitor my data usage or change my behavior. I am a single person but I host my personal non-business website from home and participate in as many peer to peer distributed and federated protocols as I can. I also do watch a bit of video media. My usage isn't only bursty, i…

It's expensive because it's dedicated bandwidth, not shared, has a SLA, which your residential connection doesn't, and comes with static IP's. They also put your house on a difference circuit from everyone else in your neighborhood, which has a cost - which explains the ETF if you move away. In your case, perhaps it's cheaper to get a $2.50/month VPS from Vultr instead of paying all these fees? You get a static IP to…

Jesus, I live in Europe and reading this thread is absolutely insane, I have gig up/down for less than 20€/mo, no commitment and no data caps of any sort. It's absolutely insane reading about how bad the ISPs in US treat clients.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#83

Post by brightball »

I must just live in a good area because I don’t understand why people still rally around this. In the past 10 years my home internet speed has gone from 15mb to 200mb with Charter/Spectrum without me paying another dime. They keep sending me free modem upgrades and there’s no fee attached. The service is good enough that I can stream 4 HD shows at the same time without an issue and internet based TV services are a viable option for people around the country. And I can do this without any noticeable drop off in work usage.

What is the expected gain from Net Neutrality at this point?

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#84

Post by skizm »

Why won't the opponents of net neutrality do the same thing they did last time and just buy comments from ad-tech companies? Most comments last time (even the ones obviously programmatically added) were legit.

Shell companies were created, those companies would buy "leads" from ad-tech companies. Those "leads" were names/emails of people who checked a box saying "I'm okay if you use my name and email to comment on the net neutrality issue." There is no real way to tell where these leads come from. Theoretically the ad-tech companies will place ads on publisher websites which contain a checkbox allowing a user to "opt-in". Once the leads make it back to the shell companies, they can add those leads to the comments section because the person willingly (in theory) gave them their info for this exact purpose. In reality the ad-tech industry is rife with grey-hat SEO techniques at best, and outright fraud at worst.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#85

Post by travbrack »

Paid fast lanes are a bad idea, but I think 100% equality for all packets is just as bad or worse. Real time traffic should be prioritized over data transfers. Right now my video call gets clobbered when I download a file. It doesn’t have to be like that.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#86

Post by Mountain_Skies »

snisarenko wrote: post #73
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #27

Would introducing competition for internet access at the residential level help prevent the type of consumer abuse that was predicted to happen? If Comcast is my only choice for broadband and there is no net neutrality, they can set whatever terms they want. If I have a choice between Comcast, three LEO internet providers, and four fixed wireless providers, Comcast loses its leverage.

Creating traditional competition in local infrastructure is difficult if not impossible for several reasons - Last mile sections of the city will always have winner takes most (customers) situation, making the lines built by the other providers redundant and wasteful - There are only so many communication lines you can put on poles, and underground, before the people start complaining about ugliness, and never ending…

Fixed wireless and LEO internet doesn't require last mile wiring. Your post, while accurate and informative, doesn't appear to have much to do with my question of wireless technologies enabling competition where wired ISPs now hold monopolies.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#87

Post by skizm »

travbrack wrote: post #85

Paid fast lanes are a bad idea, but I think 100% equality for all packets is just as bad or worse. Real time traffic should be prioritized over data transfers. Right now my video call gets clobbered when I download a file. It doesn’t have to be like that.

Use quality of service controls in your router/modem. That's an end user problem, not a dumb wires problem.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#88

Post by gsich »

travbrack wrote: post #85

Paid fast lanes are a bad idea, but I think 100% equality for all packets is just as bad or worse. Real time traffic should be prioritized over data transfers. Right now my video call gets clobbered when I download a file. It doesn’t have to be like that.

How should your ISP know? Diffserv might help, but I doubt some shitty application will set them.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#89

Post by snisarenko »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #86
snisarenko wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creating traditional competition in local infrastructure is difficult if not impossible for several reasons - Last mile sections of the city will always have winner takes most (customers) situation, making the lines built by the other providers redundant and wasteful - There are only so many communication lines you can put on poles, and underground, before the people start complaining about ugliness, and never ending…

Fixed wireless and LEO internet doesn't require last mile wiring. Your post, while accurate and informative, doesn't appear to have much to do with my question of wireless technologies enabling competition where wired ISPs now hold monopolies.

Fair point. I wasn't sure what LEO stands for (I guess low earth orbit satellites). Wireless competition is tough as well, because you have to purchase spectrum from the gov't.

Maybe not all wireless technologies ??? I am not an expert on wireless.

Still wired internet has advantages over the other technologies (stability and latency), so I am merely suggesting an effective way to compete on wired internet can help significantly (its path of least resistance from a technology standpoint, but not from a political standpoint)

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#90

Post by eropple »

Alupis wrote: post #49
crooked-v wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Comcast pays for ingress traffic into their network Actually, in some cases, Comcast gets paid FOR it. https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-t...

That's not the complete story. They started charging Netflix (or threatened to deprioritize or drop Netflix traffic) because Netflix traffic to Comcast customers starting making Comcast customers unprofitable. Comcast does pay for ingress traffic. They are not a Tier 1 provider and do not peer with other Tier 1 providers - bits flowing in cost money. They either had to charge Comcast customers more per month, or get…

Wikipedia may not be up to date, but it says that Comcast has full peering except for Tata/AS6453. For US-based stuff, and I'm not an expert here so please feel free to correct me, isn't that "close enough" for this discussion?
Post reply on HN