Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhino369 | Hacker News Reader

FCC proponents will say what you have now. The rule says “sufficiently robust, fast, and dynamic for effective use by end users and edge providers.”

Opponents say that it will kill innovation.

I think the opponents have a point, but I'm actually okay with a "fast lane" approach.

Some degree of traffic shaping is probably a good thing. It doesn't make sense to equally prioritize by dropbox update and my VOIP traffic. I want that VOIP to have low latency and high enough bandwidth. Dropbox update can wait. I'd rather have my FPS game have a low latency connection than my neighbors bittorrent connection.

I'd propose a fast lane but also ensure the slow lane isn't intentionally slowed down for no reason. Punitive throttling shouldn't be allowed.

It might be more effective if the tech community made thoughtful input in the rulemaking process instead of pure rage and outlandish demands.

View on HN

The issue with allowing net non-neutrality isn't packet shaping: it is that an entrenched player (say, Vonage) will be able to pay for a fast lane that a startup (in this case a VOIP competitor) wouldn't be able to afford, thus preventing incumbents from being disrupted.

What if the telecoms (who still make money on phone calls) had charged Skype more for bandwidth than other companies? They could have easily put Skype out of business and consumers would be much worse off for it.

I'm not saying the telecoms should be allowed to block or punitively degrade a company like Skype. I'd be okay with a "no discrimination policy." The telecom shouldn't be able to charge Skype more than it charges Conde Nast. And of course Antitrust law would still exist. Blocking Skype for anti-competitive actions is already illegal.

But I don't have a problem with them paying for priority.

That happens in virtually all industries. Amazon pays for faster shipping than a small webstore can afford. McDonalds can afford a better location than a mom and pop burger store.

It's just part of competition.

Sure its not ideal for start ups, but why should you have the right to make a law to tell Comcast how to use their network just so it benefits your start up?

Start up culture doesn't seem like regulation itself (Air B&B, Uber).

And it might actually benefit web start ups. If Netflix and Amazon pump in more cash to telecoms in exchange for faster service, that means the telecoms will build faster networks to make more money.

Net neutrality is the non-discrimination policy you want. It is also what has existed since the internet began.

Anti-trust doesn't help small companies when they go out of business before they can afford a decade-long court battle with a telecom. It also doesn't help if whole industries (VOIP, video streaming) are targeted.

"And it might actually benefit web start ups. If Netflix and Amazon pump in more cash to telecoms in exchange for faster service, that means the telecoms will build faster networks to make more money."

Or, given past US telecom behavior, they just shift more of their existing infrastructure to supporting the 'fast lanes', degrading performance for everyone else (which further incentivizes companies to pay for fast lanes) and enjoy larger profit margins. (Remember, most telecoms are in non-competitive markets, so they have little incentive to compete.)

But the fact is that you can't snipe tiered website access without also hitting packet shaping and the same peering agreements that make the Internet a useable tool for moving even reasonable amounts of data.

If you read the net neutrality proposals made by the EU and elsewhere, QOS is perfectly allowed and within the normal operation of networks. The Net Neutrality discussion has always been about punitive throttling, and if ISP are allowed to intentionally throttle a network service solely based on who and who hasn't paid them.

Thoughtful input in the rulemaking process has thus been done! Combat congestion is good thing, and no one is objecting to prioritizing VOIP traffic over bittorrent. Fastlane and slowlane has nothing to do with QoS.

The Net Neutrality discussion has always been about punitive throttling

Not on HN. Some here on HN insist that any interference with bits-in-bits-out, including QoS, violates NN.

I've mostly given up on NN debates. In addition to debating the merits of the various positions, we also have moving names for each position, and people really insistent (not you that I've yet seen) that their definition is the "right one."

Some limited QOS is. But I don't see a reason why it should be limited.

I don't think any traffic should be throttled, but in times of peak usage, you should be able to pay for priority.

That's what I mean, aren't there already "fast lanes" in the sense that Netflix doesn't have to use the "slow lane" we call the greater Internet to get its content to the Comcast network?

Peering is a "fast lane" approach, isn't it?

Yes. This isn't something many net neutrality proponents want to talk about, but allowing netflix to have sweetheart peering deals or offering rack space for caching at no cost inside ISP locations IS treating traffic differently.

I definitely want to talk about it. If an ISP is caching by using an algorithm that contains hardcoded urls, that is something other than just caching.

Yes, and it is exactly what folks here are in opposition to.

If folks here are in opposition to peering, they're attempting to literally destroy the Internet.

If we abolished peering agreements (setting aside the legal nightmare that'd cause, telling people what they can and can't do with their private networks), the subsequent Internet traffic that'd be generated would literally destroy the current Internet infrastructure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com