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

The Internet Should Be a Public Good

jacobinmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 116 posts

Re: The Internet Should Be a Public Good

#71

Post by pnathan »

falcolas wrote: post #40
wyager wrote: post #21

Internet is a public good => government claims general regulatory powers over what goes through the Internet. No thank you.

As compared to a private company claiming regulatory powers with no oversight? If Facebook owns the internet, Facebook decides what is on the internet. If icann owns domain registration with no regulation, icann decides who gets a domain (as well as the power to strip domains from their current owners). And who can stop them? Some other company offering competing root DNS servers? I don't see how that could ever work…

in a nutshell, you and OP have summed up the problems. Neither solution is terribely awesome, and we - society - needs to find a balance and appropriate governance for the system.

Re: The Internet Should Be a Public Good

#72

Post by borkborkbork »

tptacek wrote: post #68
borkborkbork wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, they'll tell you their internet connection speed is shitty. Unless you live in Chattanooga, where the evil Department of Fiber Optics is busy oppressing them.

Go look up EPB's ASN and see which public utility companies they're peering with to get Chattanooga customers in touch with Google. But this is entirely silly. EPB is great. More cities should run their own last-mile networks. What they do instead is impose regulatory frameworks that forbid companies that could run gig fiber networks from doing so unless they also serve markets where they would hemorrhage money. But…

You're right. They're prioritizing access over the financial concerns of the providers. That's what public utilities do. That's what we did when we electrified the South. That's why I keep pointing to your fundamental political assumptions. It's not that we can't do it, it's that certain people don't think it's valuable.

Re: The Internet Should Be a Public Good

#73

Post by dragonwriter »

tptacek wrote: post #63
borkborkbork wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's just better at dodging my questions than you are :). But please, keep erecting your straw man. The entire point of this is that the internet would be fundamentally different if it were democratically controlled. That does not mean we would miss out on innovations like streaming video. It does mean that average users would have faster speeds and more control over their data. This of course assumes a political env…

This isn't complicated. To believe the USG could have created an equivalent or better Internet as a regulated public utility, you have to believe that none of the major attributes of the modern Internet were produced through competition, because that is what you lose when you nationalize and regulate an industry. Electricity, gas, and water work as utilities because to a first approximation, the only competitive acce…

> most people can tell you how fast their Internet connection is

Most people on HN, maybe. Most consumers can maybe recall the speed advertised by their ISP (but maybe not, given how ISPs mostly used named tiers and often don't prominently identify even the advertised speed), but that can be a very different thing from how fast their connection is in practice.

Re: The Internet Should Be a Public Good

#74

Post by tptacek »

borkborkbork wrote: post #72
tptacek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go look up EPB's ASN and see which public utility companies they're peering with to get Chattanooga customers in touch with Google. But this is entirely silly. EPB is great. More cities should run their own last-mile networks. What they do instead is impose regulatory frameworks that forbid companies that could run gig fiber networks from doing so unless they also serve markets where they would hemorrhage money. But…

You're right. They're prioritizing access over the financial concerns of the providers. That's what public utilities do. That's what we did when we electrified the South. That's why I keep pointing to your fundamental political assumptions. It's not that we can't do it, it's that certain people don't think it's valuable.

Please stop attacking me personally. You have no idea what my fundamental political assumptions are. If you're frustrated about how unpersuasive I find your argument, perhaps stop arguing; you aren't entitled to persuade me, but you're starting to write as if you feel you are.

Re: The Internet Should Be a Public Good

#75

Post by wyager »

ebcode wrote: post #47
wyager wrote: post #21

Internet is a public good => government claims general regulatory powers over what goes through the Internet. No thank you.

Internet is a private good => private corporation claims general regulatory powers over what goes through the Internet. Thank you?

Private corporations have no strong incentive to regulate speech, and it's very easy to gain a competitive advantage by being less regulated than one's competitors.

Re: The Internet Should Be a Public Good

#76

Post by wyager »

wfo wrote: post #58
wyager wrote: post #21

Internet is a public good => government claims general regulatory powers over what goes through the Internet. No thank you.

Internet is a public good -> regulatory powers are voted on and enacted by public bodies who are transparent and can be voted out. Internet is a private good -> a tiny group of unelectable, unaccountable corporate leaders decide in secret everything about how it works, and are ethically required to make decisions which are bad for you and me but good for their profits.

Ironically, government regulation tends to work more like your second example. You are also objectively wrong; the FCC, the primary Internet regulator, is not voted in and is in no way transparent.

It's also good for profits to be less proscriptive than one's competitors. There is no discernible reason that competing ISPs would choose to limit free speech of their own accord.

Re: The Internet Should Be a Public Good

#77

Post by wyager »

falcolas wrote: post #40
wyager wrote: post #21

Internet is a public good => government claims general regulatory powers over what goes through the Internet. No thank you.

As compared to a private company claiming regulatory powers with no oversight? If Facebook owns the internet, Facebook decides what is on the internet. If icann owns domain registration with no regulation, icann decides who gets a domain (as well as the power to strip domains from their current owners). And who can stop them? Some other company offering competing root DNS servers? I don't see how that could ever work…

Why in the world do you think DNS is the issue? If you're worried about that, look at Namecoin. This is a solved problem.

The issue is that the government, given sufficient regulatory power, will start doing things like banning porn or "extreme" political views. This is not hypothetical; it has already happened in the UK.

Re: The Internet Should Be a Public Good

#78

Post by borkborkbork »

tptacek wrote: post #74
borkborkbork wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. They're prioritizing access over the financial concerns of the providers. That's what public utilities do. That's what we did when we electrified the South. That's why I keep pointing to your fundamental political assumptions. It's not that we can't do it, it's that certain people don't think it's valuable.

Please stop attacking me personally. You have no idea what my fundamental political assumptions are. If you're frustrated about how unpersuasive I find your argument, perhaps stop arguing; you aren't entitled to persuade me, but you're starting to write as if you feel you are.

I'm actually enjoying this conversation. That's why I've stuck around this long. To quote your last comment:

"What they do instead is impose regulatory frameworks that forbid companies that could run gig fiber networks from doing so unless they also serve markets where they would hemorrhage money."

Who cares if they're hemorrhaging money? The Public Works Administration hemorrhaged money electrifying the South. The Post Office hemorrhages money delivering to far flung rural areas. Society however has made the judgement that these costs are worth it because they promote inclusiveness and equality. You are making the opposite judgement. That judgement is inherently political.

Re: The Internet Should Be a Public Good

#79

Post by dragonwriter »

wyager wrote: post #76
wfo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internet is a public good -> regulatory powers are voted on and enacted by public bodies who are transparent and can be voted out. Internet is a private good -> a tiny group of unelectable, unaccountable corporate leaders decide in secret everything about how it works, and are ethically required to make decisions which are bad for you and me but good for their profits.

Ironically, government regulation tends to work more like your second example. You are also objectively wrong; the FCC, the primary Internet regulator, is not voted in and is in no way transparent. It's also good for profits to be less proscriptive than one's competitors. There is no discernible reason that competing ISPs would choose to limit free speech of their own accord.

> > Internet is a public good -> regulatory powers are voted on and enacted by public bodies who are transparent and can be voted out.

> You are also objectively wrong; the FCC, the primary Internet regulator, is not voted in and is in no way transparent.

The FCC has only the regulatory powers it is granted by statute, hence, "regulatory powers are voted on" is correct.

Those powers are enacted by Congress, which is an elected body which can be voted out.

The FCC is, in fact, governed by a number of transparency laws in the execution of its regulatory powers (and Congress has some degree of transparency, as well.)

So, I would say that your attempted rebuttal is more wrong than the post you are claiming is "objectively wrong".

Re: The Internet Should Be a Public Good

#80

Post by tptacek »

borkborkbork wrote: post #78
tptacek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop attacking me personally. You have no idea what my fundamental political assumptions are. If you're frustrated about how unpersuasive I find your argument, perhaps stop arguing; you aren't entitled to persuade me, but you're starting to write as if you feel you are.

I'm actually enjoying this conversation. That's why I've stuck around this long. To quote your last comment: "What they do instead is impose regulatory frameworks that forbid companies that could run gig fiber networks from doing so unless they also serve markets where they would hemorrhage money." Who cares if they're hemorrhaging money? The Public Works Administration hemorrhaged money electrifying the South. The P…

You don't even seem to be reading my comments anymore. You've invented a disagreement that we don't even have, so you could reintroduce politics. I'm not interested in having a political argument with you.

Incidentally, you may be chuckling at the tenor of this conversation and where it's going, but as I've told you repeatedly, I am taking offense. I am not enjoying it, and I wish you'd stop.

Post reply on HN