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

FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 202 posts

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#81

Post by verdverm »

KETHERCORTEX wrote: post #28
edmundsauto wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do they lie on speed tests? I thought that measured actual data throughput.

Simplest way to do this: good speed on Speedtest, rubbish everywhere else. Also, by default Speedtest tests the connection from you to the nearest testing node. A lot of times it's the one hosted by your ISP, so the measured speed is the speed inside the ISP's local network and not the speed from you to outer Internet.

I've been using the Google widget when you search "speedtest"

It tests using a node 200+ miles away (they tell you where) AND it actually shows slow numbers when the pipe is slow. Turns out Amazon Video was the culprit, somehow using 80% of a 100Mb connection for a single stream...

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#82

Post by rich_sasha »

Not an American: what is the non-libertarian public-facing argument against net neutrality?

I'm sure its opponents say it's bad for the general public for some reason, and one of them might be some kind of "let market competition work it out" etc. If you discard that, what is left?

There is probably also the argument that various businesses want this repealed, this is kind of clear.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#83

Post by thebradbain »

l33t7332273 wrote: post #73
ImJamal wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you think it was a federal law domain? The federal government is technically only allowed to do what is granted in the Constitution. The 10th amendment says anything else is left to the states. Last I checked nothing in the constitution mentioned the internet. Not that the federal government lets that stand in their way.

Like the other comment said, the internet is basically as interstate as a thing can get by design. The interstate commerce clause is extremely broadly interpreted. It can, for example, be used to prevent a farmer from growing grain on their own farm to feed their own cattle that reside on that very farm(Wickard v. Filburn)

Yet it can’t be used to stop California vehicle emission standards, which is why almost all car manufacturers in the US make cars up to California’s higher standards, because they’re so big.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#84

Post by belltaco »

edmundsauto wrote: post #21
falcolas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been many reports of ISPs overwriting ads and adding content to non-https content. Also bundled content on mobile providers not counting against caps, etc. Many also lie on speedtests, though I don't know if that counts.

How do they lie on speed tests? I thought that measured actual data throughput.

Some ISPs scramble to host their own speedtest or have a special version, like xfinity.speedtest.net

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#85

Post by l33t7332273 »

thebradbain wrote: post #83
l33t7332273 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the other comment said, the internet is basically as interstate as a thing can get by design. The interstate commerce clause is extremely broadly interpreted. It can, for example, be used to prevent a farmer from growing grain on their own farm to feed their own cattle that reside on that very farm(Wickard v. Filburn)

Yet it can’t be used to stop California vehicle emission standards, which is why almost all car manufacturers in the US make cars up to California’s higher standards, because they’re so big.

Right but the internet is inherently an interstate enterprise. That’s why I feel it likely falls under the purview of congress.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#86

Post by seanw444 »

Our laws are very similar to our medicine. We take a pill that causes a side-effect, which requires a pill to fix that side-effect but causes another side effect... so on.

We start with state interference of the free market in a small way, and it mangles the fair game. And then we "need" laws to "protect" us from issues caused by state interference in the first place.

So sick of it all.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#87

Post by kstrauser »

SllX wrote: post #79
calgarymicro wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting that California's net neutrality law[0] probably stymied most efforts by ISPs to start prioritizing traffic nationwide. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_P...

What I’ve never understood is the argument that what California does regulating ISPs could actually affect the service plans in 49 other States. Think about it: these are service plans offered through cables that already exist, and that cross defined borders right? But what all an ISP has to do to offer different service plans in California, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona is to merely offer different terms to different p…

Users in California may download from a service in New York. Users in New York may download from a service in California. I suspect it would be more expensive than it's worth to have asymmetric infrastructure that would allow them to them to throttle the New Yorker without violating the law for the Californian.

All that network management would require teams of engineers and specialized hardware, all for something that may change on a whim and be obsoleted. What if New York copies California law? Bam. That investment instantly evaporated.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#88

Post by axus »

rich_sasha wrote: post #82

Not an American: what is the non-libertarian public-facing argument against net neutrality? I'm sure its opponents say it's bad for the general public for some reason, and one of them might be some kind of "let market competition work it out" etc. If you discard that, what is left? There is probably also the argument that various businesses want this repealed, this is kind of clear.

Data traffic goes up to the physical limit, and everyone's services get sluggish with "no way" to fix it. Of course they could spend more money to fix it/compete but wanted an alternative.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#89

Post by kstrauser »

seanw444 wrote: post #86

Our laws are very similar to our medicine. We take a pill that causes a side-effect, which requires a pill to fix that side-effect but causes another side effect... so on. We start with state interference of the free market in a small way, and it mangles the fair game. And then we "need" laws to "protect" us from issues caused by state interference in the first place. So sick of it all.

I prefer my markets free as in GPL, not free as in BSD. Net Neutrality ensures the freedom of the market itself. Absence of Net Neutrality gives incumbents the freedom to lock competitors out of the market.

Capitalism only works if purchasers can choose between options that are competing on their own merits. Monopolies are the opposite of a free market.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#90

Post by gaganyaan »

seanw444 wrote: post #86

Our laws are very similar to our medicine. We take a pill that causes a side-effect, which requires a pill to fix that side-effect but causes another side effect... so on. We start with state interference of the free market in a small way, and it mangles the fair game. And then we "need" laws to "protect" us from issues caused by state interference in the first place. So sick of it all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
Post reply on HN