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

Keep the Internet Open

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 415 posts

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#171

Post by danielweber »

gz5 wrote: post #56

The utility should be the fiber (or spectrum). Regulate that; leave the ISPs to then compete openly. Today's software can enable multiple ISPs to share the fiber/spectrum. I could then have 10 ISPs today and 15 ISPs tomorrow. I might use ISP #1 for certain content, and ISP #2 for certain services. ISPs essentially become a function of the services and content they provide, and how they provide it, in an ultra-competi…

Isn't that what happened to the DSL market? No one will bother laying new infrastructure because anyone can use it.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#172

Post by mehaveaccount »

confounded wrote: post #49

Because of the massive amount of consolidation over the last few years, the death of Net Neutrality would be the best competitive moat imaginable for Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. While all their CEOs will make faint noises in favor of Net Neutrality, SV outspends Wall Street 2:1 on lobbying[1], the goal of which is to cement monopoly status, not to make the world a better place. Most of it goes to Republicans. Thin…

> the death of Net Neutrality would be the best competitive moat imaginable for Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. While all their CEOs will make faint noises in favor of Net Neutrality, SV outspends Wall Street 2:1 on lobbying[1], the goal of which is to cement monopoly status, not to make the world a better place. Most of it goes to Republicans.

The leaders of Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc are NOT Republicans. Most of them are pro-immigration, pro-abortion, and pro-gay marriage.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#173

Post by keebEz »

throwaway399 wrote: post #163
confounded wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your links directly contradict you, and support my original point. Note that I'm talking about money from companies (most to Republicans) not the individuals that work for them (most to Democrats).

I disagree with the company/individual distinction premise but even if you ignore individual contributions it's fairly even. Doesn't seem like a distinctly partisan issue.

Because the best lobbyists play both sides of the aisle.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#174

Post by cma »

throwaway399 wrote: post #163
confounded wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your links directly contradict you, and support my original point. Note that I'm talking about money from companies (most to Republicans) not the individuals that work for them (most to Democrats).

I disagree with the company/individual distinction premise but even if you ignore individual contributions it's fairly even. Doesn't seem like a distinctly partisan issue.

Would you also disagree with a company/labor union distinction?

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#175

Post by kbar13 »

jff wrote: post #148
mmanfrin wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demand for Youtube and FB are so high and ubiquitous that pretty much any ISP will immediately cave in. Yep, Comcast better be careful lest I leave them for the 6mbps competitors I have as options in the backwater community I live in called Berkeley, CA. I utterly fucking loathe Comcast, and yet they get thousands of my dollars because of an unspoken of oligopoly among ISPs that has grown out of the tacit agreement t…

Does Sonic.net not provide service in Berkeley? Back when I lived in the Bay Area, I switched from Comcast purely because Sonic.net isn't an utterly loathsome company. Turns out with Sonic I didn't have to reboot my modem every other week either.

sonic speeds in many parts of the bay area (even in SF) is not competitive with comcast. they are rolling out fiber in select neighborhoods and can't wait until they come to my part of town.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#176

Post by OriginalPenguin »

guelo wrote: post #144
confounded wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Comcast could charge Google or Facebook extortionate prices They can pay. Start-ups, hobbyists, and non-profits can't.

There's some price that they couldn't pay. Comcast would try to find what price that is.

And once they found it, they'd charge exactly one cent less.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#177

Post by NoPiece »

pharrlax wrote: post #134
Alex3917 wrote: post #78

> Doing this allows the government to ensure a level playing field In theory this is a good argument. In practice, my experience is that this argument causes people to write off net neutrality as just being something that's about letting tech bros make lots of money. I've even heard this from folks in the tech industry, who really should know better. An argument that may be more convincing is that the Internet is the…

The best argument I've found for convincing conservatives is to stress that the internet is a platform for commerce, and healthy commerce requires equality of opportunity -- specifically, the opportunity for consumers to access your business. ISPs literally "own the road", to create an analogy for internet businesses. If the only road company in town installs a toll booth or a series of speed bumps in front of McDona…

Another net neutrality case for conservatives: you might never get a Breitbart or IJReview in a world where Comcast is selling preference to CNN/Newscorp/Disney-ABC.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#178

Post by NoPiece »

pharrlax wrote: post #134
Alex3917 wrote: post #78

> Doing this allows the government to ensure a level playing field In theory this is a good argument. In practice, my experience is that this argument causes people to write off net neutrality as just being something that's about letting tech bros make lots of money. I've even heard this from folks in the tech industry, who really should know better. An argument that may be more convincing is that the Internet is the…

The best argument I've found for convincing conservatives is to stress that the internet is a platform for commerce, and healthy commerce requires equality of opportunity -- specifically, the opportunity for consumers to access your business. ISPs literally "own the road", to create an analogy for internet businesses. If the only road company in town installs a toll booth or a series of speed bumps in front of McDona…

Another net neutrality case for conservatives: you might never get a Breitbart or IJReview in a world where Comcast is selling preference to CNN/Newscorp/Disney-ABC.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#179

Post by bifrost »

Alex3917 wrote: post #78

> Doing this allows the government to ensure a level playing field In theory this is a good argument. In practice, my experience is that this argument causes people to write off net neutrality as just being something that's about letting tech bros make lots of money. I've even heard this from folks in the tech industry, who really should know better. An argument that may be more convincing is that the Internet is the…

"then ISPs are going to pull a Martin Shkreli"

So why didn't that happen prior to now? The NN legislation as proposed is new and the internet existed just fine prior to it.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#180

Post by rybosome »

rdl wrote: post #58

While I like the Internet being open, I don't like "net neutrality" extremism. 1) While I dislike monopoly carrier antics, I'm even more unhappy about the idea of government bureaucrats dictating network engineering standards to carriers and ISPs. If you build a network with caches/content servers close to users, and expensive backhaul back to your network core, you can offer essentially unlimited traffic to users hi…

> ...I'm even more unhappy about the idea of government bureaucrats dictating network engineering standards to carriers and ISPs.

Why? Government bureaucrats dictate aviation engineering standards to airplane manufacturers, automobile engineering standards to car manufacturers, radio engineering standards to electronics manufacturers, and so on. These are generally good things: they ensure that citizens can have a reasonable expectation of safety and that resources are shared fairly.

Even with better competition, the ISPs will still wield a tremendous amount of power - internet access is critical to modern, prosperous life, so demand will be quite inelastic regardless of what they do to consumers. Furthermore, lifting regulations that providers must service an entire market won't help the many consumers who are in single family homes. They'll be left to pay for the service of a monopoly (or a duopoly if they're lucky) who can now legally extort smaller content providers without the power and clout to negotiate better terms.

Post reply on HN