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

ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 329 posts

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#91

Post by threatofrain »

walrus01 wrote: post #80
jmyeet wrote: post #46

The whole net neutrality saga just exposed the deep regulatory capture between ISPs and the FCC (the Republican Commissioners at least). Pai's argument for repealing net neutrality was that it wasn't a Federal government concern. That was originally what prompted California to institute these rules. But suddenly it wasn't a state issue either. Weird . The US has some of the most expensive Internet access in the world…

[flagged]

IMO states' rights is a pretty nerdy issue if you take a step back and think about it. Very few people are such nerds.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#92

Post by imgabe »

bberenberg wrote: post #7
wrycoder wrote: post #2

> California's net neutrality law is similar to the federal rules repealed under former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. California prohibits ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful traffic. It also prohibits requiring fees from websites or online services to deliver or prioritize their traffic to consumers, bans paid data cap exemptions (so-called "zero-rating"), and says that ISPs may not attempt to evade net neutrality prot…

I don't support this, but I can try to steel man this position. Largely it comes with the idea that use = cost, and that infrastructure has limited capacity and is therefore zeroish sum. For example, a common idea is that we should tax trucks more than other cars because they cause a large amount of damage to our roads. Following that logic, the companies that encourage users to consume more bandwidth should be charg…

Doesn't Netflix already pay on a usage basis for their bandwidth? If you run a small website that gets 100 users a month, you pay very little for bandwidth. If you run a video streaming site with millions of users you pay a lot.

And the users also pay for the bandwidth to download. Exactly how many more times do the ISPs need to get paid?

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#93

Post by dang »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #58

The link here appears to be broken. Here is the correct one, fyi @dang https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/04/isps-cant-find-a...

Thanks! Fixed now. The submitted URL (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/04/isps-cant-find-a...) did a weird redirect.

(altairprime is correct btw. I just saw this by accident.)

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#97

Post by jollybean »

wrycoder wrote: post #2

> California's net neutrality law is similar to the federal rules repealed under former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. California prohibits ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful traffic. It also prohibits requiring fees from websites or online services to deliver or prioritize their traffic to consumers, bans paid data cap exemptions (so-called "zero-rating"), and says that ISPs may not attempt to evade net neutrality prot…

"prohibits requiring fees from websites or online services to deliver or prioritize their traffic to consumers"

This is not 'Net Neutrality'.

If data providers like Netflix want 'special service' then they can pay for it.

'Net Neutrality' is more like Carriers cannot charge more for email, than for games, than for messaging, than for something else.

Carriers should be able to charge whatever they want for whatever QoS (Quality of Service).

If Netflix wants more bandwidth with lower latency, fine, they can pay for that.

But Carriers cannot arbitrary charge 'more' to Netflix because they are 'richer' or because of the type of content.

Federal legislation needs to go further and separate content form data networks.

AT&T has a vast Content Empire that is in direct competition with Netflix, this is a gigantic conflict of interest.

AT&T can sell bytes of data at a quality of service. That's it. Maybe phones - so long as those phones can work on any network and other phones work on it's network.

Content? No way.

Same with cable distributors.

And more difficult to articulate but Apple shouldn't be able to compete with those in the App Store, for example and by law be very 'neutral' there as well: they have to treat everyone the same.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#98

Post by temp8964 »

walrus01 wrote: post #80
jmyeet wrote: post #46

The whole net neutrality saga just exposed the deep regulatory capture between ISPs and the FCC (the Republican Commissioners at least). Pai's argument for repealing net neutrality was that it wasn't a Federal government concern. That was originally what prompted California to institute these rules. But suddenly it wasn't a state issue either. Weird . The US has some of the most expensive Internet access in the world…

[flagged]

No post body was provided.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#99

Post by walrus01 »

temp8964 wrote: post #98
walrus01 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Quoted post unavailable.

No, states either have the right to set their own laws or they don't, you don't get to pick and choose some categories of laws on ideological grounds. State level abortion laws and school textbook laws are okay to override federal regulations but not telecom laws?

Fact is there's a certain set of individuals right now spending a lot of time, money and effort to set new state laws based on conservative religious ideology. Conveniently enough, many of them also happen to be big fans of Ajit Pai and the people working to overturn net neutrality laws.

But then again, American politics and hypocrisy is nothing new, so it's not like I'm surprised in the slightest.

Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law

#100

Post by monkeywork »

bberenberg wrote: post #7
wrycoder wrote: post #2

> California's net neutrality law is similar to the federal rules repealed under former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. California prohibits ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful traffic. It also prohibits requiring fees from websites or online services to deliver or prioritize their traffic to consumers, bans paid data cap exemptions (so-called "zero-rating"), and says that ISPs may not attempt to evade net neutrality prot…

I don't support this, but I can try to steel man this position. Largely it comes with the idea that use = cost, and that infrastructure has limited capacity and is therefore zeroish sum. For example, a common idea is that we should tax trucks more than other cars because they cause a large amount of damage to our roads. Following that logic, the companies that encourage users to consume more bandwidth should be charg…

In your example I'd say you have the following entities:

* ISP = Government * Client = Driver * Netflix = Ford * Shows = Truck * Bandwidth = Roads

The Government (ISP) taxes the Driver (Client) when they buy a Truck (watch shows) because that act puts stress on the Roads (Bandwidth). They do not put a special tax on Ford (Netflix) for simply offering a Truck (show) for sale.

So if the ISP wants to get extra revenue from this they need to charge the client more as they use more bandwidth.

Post reply on HN