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

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#31

Post by hugh3 »

jswinghammer wrote: post #23
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…

If God has laws to protect our rights, then He really should be way more vigilant about enforcing them.

Rights aren't granted by men, they're asserted by men. We have the right to free speech because we assert that we have the right to free speech, and the collective will of those who wish to assert the right to free speech is (currently, in this country, for the most part) greater than the will of those who wish to restrict it. This is why it's so important that we all agree on what rights we do have, and that we all spend a lot of time vigourously asserting them.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#32

Post by dwwoelfel »

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…

He never claims that the ISPs have a right to regulate traffic because they have to remain competitive (whatever that means). He makes it very clear that ISPs have a right to regulate traffic because they own the infrastructure.

The alternative is "government control of the privately owned infrastructure that makes the Internet possible."

How many choices you have doesn't determine whether something is or is not a free market. That's like saying that there is no free market in tablet computers because you can only buy iPads or JooJoos. Men are free to create and sell their own tablets, just as men are free to create their own ISPs. That is what makes it a free market.

Of course, the ISP market isn't totally free, but the solution is to remove regulations that violate the property rights of the ISPs. Net neutrality only makes the market less free.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#33

Post by necubi »

jquery wrote: post #29
necubi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The study was merely commissioned by the FCC, but it was actually conducted by Harvard's Berkman Center for Public Policy. And your curt comment neatly avoids actually evaluating this very well-done study. I've done my own analyses of the data (which is mostly all publicly available from the OECD) and found similar conclusions (for example: about 68% of the variance in price of "fast" connection (12-36Mb/s) in the OECD is attributable to the presence of various government regulations, including LLU, as is about 30% of the variance in price per mbit). If you doubt their methodology or results, I invite you to look at the data and make your own conclusions.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#34

Post by jquery »

wmf wrote: post #2

TLDR: This is exactly what you'd expect ultracapitalist Objectivists to say: ISPs should be allowed to do whatever they want because their networks are private property.

Ultracapitalist? You mean an entrepreneur?

Or were you just trying to slur someone for having a different viewpoint?

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#35

Post by CWuestefeld »

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…

Broadband is very much a natural monopoly, like electricity or water.

ATT used to say that the phone network was "a natural monopoly". Today we'd laugh at that. Really, this example is so glaring that I'm surprised you'd offer this argument. And in fact you acknowledge that the local loop is separate from the actual network. But the difference in the US is that this is a free market -- I can choose to use Embarq (the traditional copper-wire circuit-switched carrier), or I can (and do) use Vonage, or scads of other IP-based carriers, or I could do like many people do and just use cellular. We the consumers are getting to choose just how this unbundling happens.

If, for some reason, you think that there's something sacred about telephone, while data is different (or vice versa), there are other counterexamples as well.

In New York, while electrical transmission remains a monopoly, generation has many choices. It works just like the phones: where the infrastructure demands a single source, that's what we get, but that doesn't mean that the people that provide the wires can be the only one involved in the business. (I pay more for electricity that's generated in part by windmills)

And most obviously, it seems to me that most people have access to two broadband carriers, albeit their capacity varies widely (but that's what markets are all about, right?). Virtually everyone I know has a choice of a DSL provider or a Cable provider.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#36

Post by wmf »

chaosmachine wrote: post #28
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.

This is why I think it's dangerous to describe open access as a competition-based solution. In open access there's competition only for the part of the network that doesn't matter and thus such competition doesn't solve very much. The real benefit of open access comes when the last mile has to be neutral, in which case the benefit comes from neutrality regulation, not open access.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#37

Post by rbranson »

hugh3 wrote: post #31
jswinghammer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If God has laws to protect our rights, then He really should be way more vigilant about enforcing them. Rights aren't granted by men, they're asserted by men. We have the right to free speech because we assert that we have the right to free speech, and the collective will of those who wish to assert the right to free speech is (currently, in this country, for the most part) greater than the will of those who wish to…

^^^ This is mostly exactly what I'm getting at, but said in a much more eloquent way. Thank you.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#38

Post by kreneskyp »

dwwoelfel wrote: post #32
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…

He never claims that the ISPs have a right to regulate traffic because they have to remain competitive (whatever that means). He makes it very clear that ISPs have a right to regulate traffic because they own the infrastructure. The alternative is "government control of the privately owned infrastructure that makes the Internet possible." How many choices you have doesn't determine whether something is or is not a fr…

The premise of net neutrality is that the internet is a limited resource. The physical space required for building infrastructure is limited, effectively making the internet a limited resource as well. Most cities have already leased out the space for building networks, or let companies own the poles and conduits outright.

This is why i took issue with his car showroom example. Its a big difference when there are plenty of places to build a showroom. There's only one easement behind my house. The poles are owned by comcast, the ground has sewers.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#39

Post by boyer »

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…

So what you're afraid of is, using an analogy, if the government doesn't regulate the lemonade industry, there will be no high quality lemonade available to you at any reasonable price. By regulate, I mean ensure that everyone gets the same quality lemonade.

Of course, if everyone gets the same quality lemonade and the government keeps pouring money into the big lemonade stands, you're actually creating a system where lemonade will never improve.

The only chance we have of having optimal lemonade is to deregulate the lemonade stands.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#40

Post by jquery »

necubi wrote: post #33
jquery wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The study was merely commissioned by the FCC, but it was actually conducted by Harvard's Berkman Center for Public Policy. And your curt comment neatly avoids actually evaluating this very well-done study. I've done my own analyses of the data (which is mostly all publicly available from the OECD) and found similar conclusions (for example: about 68% of the variance in price of "fast" connection (12-36Mb/s) in the OE…

How can you possibly isolate something to a percentage point that involves things as nebulous as "various government regulations" operating on vast industries spanning multiple countries? My skepticism meter is off the charts here.
Post reply on HN