News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A list of ways to “Break the Internet” for the 48 hours b... by SilasX on Wednesday December 13, 2017 @06:02PM (#15918529)
>Like many anti-competitive behaviors, A and B are seemingly beneficial to customers, but in the long run they are harmful to the market by preventing smaller players from competing fairly.

But what's the difference between those and C? Or between those and me building a dedicated line straight to my favorite server, just for us? Or are you really against Netflix's OpenConnect as a NN violation?

>I have never seen a net neutrality proposal that includes something that prevents higher charges for higher usage. ...This is a complete straw-man argument.

From a very quick search:

"Net Neutrality is one of only a few tools available to the FCC to keep ISPs in check. Banning data caps and zero rating schemes would be another great way to protect consumers from Wall Street’s insatiable demand for companies to extract more revenue from consumers."[1]

There -- a major advocacy group (stopthecap.com/tag/net-neutrality/) equating net neutrality with a ban on data caps (a species of charging for usage). [2] The fact that you are too smart to make the argument doesn't mean others aren't, nor that it isn't polluting the discussion, nor that I can't legitimately object to NN if it's read so broadly.

[1] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:t2UetpS...

[2] That's on top of the ever-present poster who thinks NN will keep their ISP from throttling their constant bittorrent streams in favor of granny's occasional emails.

Re:A list of ways to “Break the Internet” for the 48 hours b... by TheCoelacanth on Wednesday December 13, 2017 @07:01PM (#15918857)
Banning data caps is very different from not allowing higher charges for higher usage.

Most data caps are of the type where you pay a flat fee for a fixed amount of data and then pay an outrageously high punitive fee for overages that is vastly out of proportion with the amount you are paying for the data below the cap. In other instances your speeds get dramatically throttled after reaching the cap or are completely cut off if you go over the cap too often. I think that should be outlawed.

Those aren't good faith attempts to charge people for what they are using; they are attempts to shut down heavy users, often because the ISPs are also in the cable TV business which competes with streaming video that is responsible for heavy data usage.

A good faith attempt to charge heavy data users fairly for their use would probably look something like the billing models used for electricity.

Re:A list of ways to “Break the Internet” for the 48 hours b... by SilasX on Wednesday December 13, 2017 @07:38PM (#15919037)
>Banning data caps is very different from not allowing higher charges for higher usage.

>A good faith attempt to charge heavy data users fairly for their use would probably look something like the billing models used for electricity.

It's not "very different", it's one way of charging higher users more. And the fact that it's a bad way doesn't mean the NN crowd supports the good way either! They object to the electricity model on the grounds that "bandwidth isn't scarce[1]" and that high users should be just as capable of crowding out low users during peak times, that there shouldn't be any downside to higher usage.

[1] in the true-enough sense of "the relevant scarce parameter is not how much you download in total, but how much of the flow of the pipe you are using at any given moment".