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

Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

theobjectivestandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 50 posts

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#21

Post by wmf »

sshumaker wrote: post #13

There is one critical flaw with the reasoning of all these opponents of Net Neutrality. They claim the ISPs should have the right to regulate traffic to remain 'competitive', and that users who aren't happy with the regulation can simply choose another ISP. That's how the free market works. Except this isn't really a free market. In most locations, consumers only have a single choice for broadband access (or two at m…

Since the lack of broadband competition may be caused by government regulation, the author would prefer total deregulation rather than Net Neutrality or the status quo: "The key to competition in the Internet is less regulation, not the added regulation entailed by net neutrality. ... We must undo the relatively few controls already placed on the Internet..."

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#22

Post by dionysiac »

Government control of private property - this is how some public utilities operate. Private industry builds the infrastructure, but the government aims to bring stability through regulation to what a large part of the general population sees as an essential service.

This article makes the analogy to the printing press; that the Internet is changing our worldwide society dramatically. Those who are for net neutrality (myself included) would likely agree - that this transformation is a positive thing and should move towards becoming an essential service.

How this is accomplished - either through private industry or government ownership - is really just a matter of culture. Many countries have significant government ownership of network infrastructure.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#23

Post by jswinghammer »

rbranson wrote: post #14

Just because someone owns property does not mean that they have unending rights to do with that property what they wish. Go buy a piece of land in the middle of the city, build a giant bonfire, and see what happens. Due to state "regulation," your landlord can't just barge in on his/her property whenever he/she wishes. Laws like this have existed to protect the weak or meek for ages. In a sense, "property" does not e…

What you are suggesting depends entirely on the source of rights. If rights are granted by men and can be removed then you're right. If your rights are inherent or granted by God then you are incorrect.

If my rights are granted by God (and included in those rights is the right to private ownership) then if someone invades my land they are violating God's law.

Private property is the basic requirement of wealth. It is defined by law to codify what existed for the protection and benefit of everyone. I'm basically quoting Aristotle here.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#24

Post by necubi »

wmf wrote: post #21
sshumaker wrote: post #13

There is one critical flaw with the reasoning of all these opponents of Net Neutrality. They claim the ISPs should have the right to regulate traffic to remain 'competitive', and that users who aren't happy with the regulation can simply choose another ISP. That's how the free market works. Except this isn't really a free market. In most locations, consumers only have a single choice for broadband access (or two at m…

Since the lack of broadband competition may be caused by government regulation, the author would prefer total deregulation rather than Net Neutrality or the status quo: "The key to competition in the Internet is less regulation, not the added regulation entailed by net neutrality. ... We must undo the relatively few controls already placed on the Internet..."

Except that it's not created by government regulation, tt just doesn't make economic sense. Broadband is very much a natural monopoly, like electricity or water. In a free market, the first few incumbents (usually the phone provider and the cable provider) who have already built out their infrastructure for old services (phone and cable TV) have a huge advantage over any other company, which would have to spend billions to lay their own wires. Thus market forces prevent any other company from entering the market.

Furthermore, it's not really clear that the socially desirable outcome is to promote competition at the line level. Because each producer has to spend billions on infrastructure to serve fewer people (because the more providers there are, the fewer customers for each), costs will be higher and profits lower the more companies enter the market.

The best solution is in fact government regulation. Instead of promoting competition at the line-level, governments should (and most OECD countries do, with the exception of Mexico, the Slovak Republic and...the US) require local-loop unbundling, whereby the incumbent telco is given a monopoly on laying lines to houses but is required to lease their lines to competitors at a set price.

For more information, read the Berkman Center's Broadband report, which was commissioned by the FCC and is presently the more thorough empirical look at these topics. It's available here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/broadband/.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#25

Post by jquery »

pyre wrote: post #12
dantheman wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it seems your problem is with the initial government intervention? So in order to fix that we need more?

I'm not really offering solutions. I'm pointing out the lack of a decent evaluation of how we got here and how we can fix it. Almost all net neutrality discussions are people that want to prevent large ISPs from enacting draconian restrictions on their networks vs the people that don't want any government regulation of anything. There doesn't seem to be much constructive discussion. Just people taking traditional 'li…

I'll take large corporations with vested interests over the government. At least those interests are maintaining a profit and answering to the market. I can pick between a few different COMPETING mega-corps (if they are a monopoly, break them up via anti-trust). With the government I will have no choices and I can see them chomping at the bit to take away liberty "for the children."

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#26

Post by chasingsparks »

wmf wrote: post #16
chasingsparks wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be true but it's irrelevant. I'd have no objection if you left out the introductory clause. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

Actually I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying that you probably don't need to read this (long-winded) article because it simply reiterates a well-known and well-worn position.

Sorry. I didn't notice your TLDR tag.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#27

Post by jquery »

lmkg wrote: post #11

The problem with a lack of net neutrality is not how ISPs relate to their paying customers, it's how they relate to content providers. That's not to say that I agree with the arguments in the article; I find them extremely distasteful, although there is some reasoning behind them, based on ideas of morality that I disagree with but don't find completely invalid. I'll outline the scenario that worries me. Comcast send…

> Effectively, it is in an excellent position to leverage its ISP monopoly to create a massive extortion racket to content providers. And the magical free market isn't going to push back against Comcast, because the experience for the end-user has not noticeably suffered.

So in the end, being an internet provider is massively profitable, and maybe another company decides to jump into the space to take a share of the highly profitable market. Maybe two companies, maybe three. Suddenly there are choices, these companies are competing on price, service, bandwidth, etc. for customers and everyone wins, all at the price of Mom's free blog being served 1/10th of a second slower in the interim.

Sounds good to me.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#28

Post by chaosmachine »

sshumaker wrote: post #13

There is one critical flaw with the reasoning of all these opponents of Net Neutrality. They claim the ISPs should have the right to regulate traffic to remain 'competitive', and that users who aren't happy with the regulation can simply choose another ISP. That's how the free market works. Except this isn't really a free market. In most locations, consumers only have a single choice for broadband access (or two at m…

Here in Ontario, we have the illusion of choice. Bell owns the DSL system, and allows other companies to resell access. Bell still controls the network, however. Back in 2008, Bell implemented bit torrent throttling and forced the change on all resellers. So now we have a choice of throttled DSL, throttled DSL, or throttled DSL.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#29

Post by jquery »

necubi wrote: post #24
wmf wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the lack of broadband competition may be caused by government regulation, the author would prefer total deregulation rather than Net Neutrality or the status quo: "The key to competition in the Internet is less regulation, not the added regulation entailed by net neutrality. ... We must undo the relatively few controls already placed on the Internet..."

Except that it's not created by government regulation, tt just doesn't make economic sense. Broadband is very much a natural monopoly, like electricity or water. In a free market, the first few incumbents (usually the phone provider and the cable provider) who have already built out their infrastructure for old services (phone and cable TV) have a huge advantage over any other company, which would have to spend billi…

A government commission studying [subject] recommends more governmental control over [subject]? I don't find that impressive.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#30

Post by jquery »

jbooth wrote: post #17
dantheman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they fail to see the distinction, but instead of further cementing government control they in fact argue that telcos should lose their government privileges and be left to compete in the market. Sure at first they will have significant advantages but as time goes on competition should be able to function.

Yeah, because if I have a problem with my ISP, I'll just head to the bank, borrow a few hundred billion and build my own backbone.

This is sort of funny, but despite receiving many more upvotes than its parent, it displays a startling lack of understanding of the capitalist system.

More likely than you borrowing a few "hundred billion," large, midsize, and even small corporations would invest a "few million" in a city or neighborhood somewhere and use the profits to continue investing in other profitable areas. They might even collaborate and start connecting entire cities together (oh look, a backbone). I find this a much more desirable outcome than a government-run or (the current) psuedo-government run scenario.

Post reply on HN