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

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#41

Post by jonallanharper »

dionysiac wrote: post #22

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…

Many countries gradually cannibalize themselves in the name of the "public good" as well.

USA has been the only experiment in capitalism so far (and a raving success until the income tax was instituted)... why re-model on failed socialist principles?

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#42

Post by pyre »

jquery wrote: post #25
pyre wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

The thing is that you're buying into the false dichotomy of the Net Neutrality debate. It's not an all-or-nothing prospect. Rather than framing the question in terms of, "who should control our internet," we should be asking, "how can we fix the current situation." In your post, you make an excellent suggestion, anti-trust. The only issue with that, is that we've proven in recent years that the power of the corporation extends well into the government, and most anti-trust attempts end up as not much more than slaps on the wrist.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#43

Post by necubi »

jquery wrote: post #40
necubi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not actually that nebulous (I was simplifying because it seemed more appropriate for the setting than to give a thorough discussion of the relevant analysis). The technique, though, is regression analysis, which is widely used in econometrics (amongst other fields) to gauge the marginal effect of various variables. Obviously the exact percentage should be taken with a grain of salt, but those numbers (which are significant at 5% confidence) clearly demonstrate the point.

Again, the Berkman Center's study is very well-done, and if your skepticism remains I encourage you to at least skim it. Otherwise, you're arguing from a position of ignorance and are contributing little to this discussion.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#44

Post by r0s »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #35
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…

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…

I can (and do) use Vonage, or scads of other IP-based carrier

You're missing the point, services like voip could end up priced arbitrarily in the interest of the carrier. What if non-AT&T voip services were priced out of the market? This is not beneficial to the consumer. It's easy to claim wireless or some new technology will always provide innovation and options, now, when the market is new and less consolidated. 10 years from now, there's no reason to think a single company won't own cell networks as well as cable networks, or any other medium for that matter. The status quo sucks! I don't know about your area, but around here ISPs rarely, if ever invest in infrastructure, and upgrades are unheard of. My parents in a rural area have been waiting for years for any land based broadband options, 3g doesn't even work there!

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#45

Post by dwwoelfel »

kreneskyp wrote: post #38
dwwoelfel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ple…

So the only way to get an internet signal into your house is through the wires owned by Comcast? Do they also own the power lines? The phone lines? The space on your roof for a satellite dish?

Even if there was no other way to get an internet signal into your house, that still wouldn't justify violating Comcast's property rights.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#46

Post by avdempsey »

I wonder if there's a simile to make with electric utilities.

A "smart grid" could potentially distinguish between surcharge-able electrons, just as a "smart internet" (one without net neurtrality) could distinguish between good and bad packets. Would you want an electric utility to be able to charge you more because you bought the wrong brand of refrigerator? Or were charging an imported electric car?

Of course utilities will charge more for peak hour usage right now, but at least every electron is charged the same at that time.

What do you think?

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#47

Post by jswinghammer »

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…

God's laws would define our rights and if you believe that Hell exists then he makes sure things get sorted out in the end just fine.

Without a basis for defining rights you're leaving room for those rights to be trampled on by the next popular tyrant who comes along. That's what I'm concerned about.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#48

Post by necubi »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #35
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…

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…

You're missing the point, but not for the reason given below. The pipe is the natural monopoly, not the services provided over it. This is so obvious that it hardly bears repeating, but again: it makes no more economic sense for multiple companies to run fiber to each house than it does for multiple companies to run electric wires to each house.

Sure you can use Vonage for phone instead of AT&T (or whatever), but you can only do that because you have a pipe to the internet. VoIP services are means of getting phone over a different pipe, but you still need a pipe.

You also seem to miss the point of my comment: governments should have policies like mandatory local-loop unbundling (also called line-sharing) which produce competition where it makes sense (providing backbone) instead of where it makes little sense (providing the "last-mile" connection).

Finally, a duopoly is better than a monopoly, but not by much. It still gives the players far too much control of the market.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#49

Post by jbooth »

jquery wrote: post #30
jbooth wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

Well, ok Mr. Capitalist, why hasn't that happened yet? It's certainly not because the existing cable companies' sterling customer service leaves no room for improvement.

Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

#50

Post by dantheman »

jbooth wrote: post #49
jquery wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

Well, ok Mr. Capitalist, why hasn't that happened yet? It's certainly not because the existing cable companies' sterling customer service leaves no room for improvement.

It hasn't happened because most communities grant a monopoly to their cable provider so their can only be one legal cable company in a given area.
Post reply on HN