The FCC Still Doesn’t Know How the Internet Works | Hacker News Reader

The FCC Still Doesn’t Know How the Internet Works

eff.org

73 pointsnoncoml18 comments

EFF claims that caching is not a integral part for ISPs. They use Sonic as an example, but why no mention of other ISPs? Doesn't this link say otherwise?

"For unanticipated traffic spikes, Comcast absorbs the excess traffic by automatically spreading traffic to multiple CDN caches in the same metro. Comcast has over 100 separate caching locations in the U.S., and spreads its CDN traffic to multiple proximate physical locations in each major metro without a tradeoff in performance. These CDN locations are strategically deployed across the U.S., which (1) enables delivery in large metro areas and (2) more evenly spreads demand to prevent congestion that commonly impacts high throughput HD video and large file downloads. In addition, the Comcast network is well interconnected with many other networks. This enables high-quality content distribution, and allows content to be localized for distribution just as effectively."

https://www.comcasttechnologysolutions.com/blog/how-comcasts...

The CDN is a service they sell to content providers, to do part of the hosting for them. It's not part of their internet service.

To be fair almost none of those points, while completely valid, are within the FCC's charter.

The only regulatory mandate the FCC has with regard to internet is to ensure that ISPs offer uniformity of pricing and service as those schemes cross state boundaries (interstate regulation of wires and transmission), which isn't the problem net neutrality aims to solve.

I used to believe that also, but it turns out the FCC does the FTCs job when it comes to telecom and the internet (anti-trust etc) in the context of media. Personally I think that's the most important issue here, in my opinion the FCC is doing a job the FTC should be doing.

Good point. I really wish congress would codify this so that things like net neutrality would have no excuse for contention.

Yes indeed. My opinions around "net neutrality" would change a lot IF the FTC was responsible for the media component, as it sits the lobbing allows for too much conflation of issues.

I'd like to know if "they" really don't know, or simply someone(s) were tasked to come up with some arguments and those in power really don't care how accurate it is or not.

The problem is shoehorning the internet into a regulatory scheme devised in the 1930s for telephone service that was modified pre-modern internet (in 1996). The regulatory scheme was designed to regulate Southern Bell, a telecommunication service, who used to dial into an "information service" like CompuServe, without harshly regulating CompuServe.

But broadband ISPs sort of operate as both and neither. You can call them either an information service or a telecommunication service depending on how you view them. But there are problems with both labels.

Which led the FCC labeling cable broadband an info service and DSL a telecommunication service. That ruined the DSL market in the USA until the FCC decided to label all ISPs as information services.

In 2015, the FCC switched back to telecommunication service because they lacked the power to apply net neutrality to an info service.

Really, we need a new regulatory scheme, but good luck getting that through congress.

I'm going to need you to provide some sources, because that smells an awful lot like complete horse shit.

The DSL market was doomed to failure not because it was classified as a telecommunication service, but because it is technically inferior to cable. DSL's limited range and bandwidth causes it to have spotty coverage and generally slower speeds than cable. Slower speed by itself might not have been fatal, but it also caused even more spotty availability of TV service over DSL. The inability to offer "triple play" service made DSL unattractive compared to cable even for people who didn't care too much about the speed of their internet service.

In most of the world, DSL is more successful than cable.

Title II also prevented telecoms from replacing DSL with fiber lines that could do all of that. After Title II ended, AT&T and Verizon suddenly poured money into Fiber.

It's important to note that even the Obama era FCC didn't want Title II actually applied. They just used it to get net neutrality. They suspended almost all other Title II rules.

What? Verizon rolled out the bulk of its fiber service between 2005 and 2010 at which point it halted new roll outs. AT&T has been pretty miserly with it's fiber roll out until just the last year or so when they accelerated deployment as a condition of their merger with DirectTV.

Title II was removed from Verizon's service in early 2005. Before then they had to do local loop unbundling and reselling.

In 2015 it was added back, but with almost all Title II rules suspended. Like price controls, unbundling, reselling, etc.

The problem is believing the economics of running wires to everyone's home has fundamentally changed since the 1990s. Vertically integrated broadband ISPs have elements of both telecommunications and information services. The FCC chose to allow vertical integration, supposedly believing it would increase competition. Other countries kept them separate and have more competitive markets as a result.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his job depends upon his not understanding it!"

For calling the FCC out on their lack of technical knowledge I find this quote rather lackluster from the EFF.

"Every machine translates IP addresses from machine-order to network-order;"

No. Network order is big-endian, and for big-endian architectures there is no translation that occurs.

Also, "As the FCC would have it, an Internet user actively expects their ISP to provide DNS to them."

Yeah, they do. Just because most users don't know what DNS is doesn't mean they don't expect it. They expect their Internet connection to work and part of that is DNS resolution. Come on EFF you can do better than this.

Isn't that a rather pedantic swipe? How many machines do you know which are still big-endian?

DNS resolution is done by your operating system; just because ISPs provide DNS servers doesn't mean that's a service they're solely responsible for considering you can switch DNS servers at any time, with the exception of ISPs who wrongly prohibit such things. In many cases DNS resolution is sped up by changing DNS servers; weird that eh?

If the FCC doesn't know how the internet works, why does the EFF want them regulating it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com