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

The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 206 posts

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#61

Post by callalex »

splintercell wrote: post #50
outsidetheparty wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's obvious. Business model 2 involves significant capital expenditure. Business model 1 involves the same profit without the risk; all they have to do is cut deals and act as rent-seekers on their existing infrastructure. They'd have to be fools to go for model 2.

You're not thinking it clearly. As long as you assume them to be profit seeking individuals and not some inconsistent model, then their choice leans far too heavily towards investing in their own infrastructure (even if you assume a bully who is ripping people's lunch money to invest some of that lunch money into a gym membership). If they launch Verizon Music, then they'll have to build a service as good as Spotify…

>If they launch Verizon Music, then they'll have to build a service as good as Spotify (if not better) in order compete with Spotify.

Not really, they could just charge an additional $10/mo for users to access Spotify and people will start to choose Verizon Music since it is half the price, even though it is worse, which then bleeds Spotify dry.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#62

Post by [deleted] »

splintercell wrote: post #56
__jal wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's just spewing bullshit to get past the decision becoming final. Engaging on a level of logic with someone who is seeking an outcome and just says whatever they think will support their view. This is about the exercise of power. And as has happened since Reagan, when the clownshow in office is finally shown the door, the D's get to clean up the mess, work towards fixing economy yet again, and the cycle of life is…

In past I've seen comments and incendiary language like this be given warning from the mods. I come to this site because despite of being more liberal leaning, I can have calm conversations with people.

[deleted]

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#63

Post by westernmostcoy »

splintercell wrote: post #50
outsidetheparty wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's obvious. Business model 2 involves significant capital expenditure. Business model 1 involves the same profit without the risk; all they have to do is cut deals and act as rent-seekers on their existing infrastructure. They'd have to be fools to go for model 2.

You're not thinking it clearly. As long as you assume them to be profit seeking individuals and not some inconsistent model, then their choice leans far too heavily towards investing in their own infrastructure (even if you assume a bully who is ripping people's lunch money to invest some of that lunch money into a gym membership). If they launch Verizon Music, then they'll have to build a service as good as Spotify…

> If they launch Verizon Music, then they'll have to build a service as good as Spotify (if not better) in order compete with Spotify.

This is the problem though. What happens when they build Verizon Music and then charge people to use (or otherwise harm access to) Spotify?

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#64

Post by ThePurpleKnight »

prklmn wrote: post #46
splintercell wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? The fundamental idea is that the amount of investment done in a venture is directly proportional to the profitability of that venture. If govt makes a regulation saying that Google can provide Hangouts service, but it cannot charge more for Enterprise Hangouts features, then Google has no addi…

Not having adequate competition plays a major role in this. If the market was actually competitive, they would have to invest more to stay alive, regardless of the regulations. It's the lack of competition that's driving the industry.

And to be fair to Pai, he has consistently said his main goal is to reduce the regulatory burdens preventing people from getting in to the market.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#66

Post by kevin_b_er »

splintercell wrote: post #50
outsidetheparty wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's obvious. Business model 2 involves significant capital expenditure. Business model 1 involves the same profit without the risk; all they have to do is cut deals and act as rent-seekers on their existing infrastructure. They'd have to be fools to go for model 2.

You're not thinking it clearly. As long as you assume them to be profit seeking individuals and not some inconsistent model, then their choice leans far too heavily towards investing in their own infrastructure (even if you assume a bully who is ripping people's lunch money to invest some of that lunch money into a gym membership). If they launch Verizon Music, then they'll have to build a service as good as Spotify…

They do not have a build a service as good as spotify. They just have to force spotify to be more expensive by rent seeking. They make money either way.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#67

Post by TearsInTheRain »

glitcher wrote: post #38
sinak wrote: post #5

Here is the "fact sheet" that Ajit Pai distributed at the event at the Newseum today: https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/85728851922775655... Also of note, YC, TechStars and Engine Advocacy released their "Startups for Net Neutrality" letter to Pai this morning: http://www.engine.is/startups-for-net-neutrality

The bullet points under the section "A New Approach" of that fact sheet seem like pure political rhetoric. Where is the evidence to support the legitimacy of any of those claims???

I think the evidence is implicit in the fact that the opposite of those things happened when net neutrality was put in place

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#68

Post by ue_ »

MS_Buys_Upvotes wrote: post #7
notadoc wrote: post #3

How, specifically, is this helpful to the consumer or to the internet in general?

It's not. Not to get too political but there are two groups: "the people" and "business". Watch every decision the current administration makes. It's helpful for "business" and hurts "the people". This is the opposite of what most people think it should be.

> Watch every decision the current administration makes.

Just the current administration, or democracies around the world? It's a fact that capital rules economy and by extension our lives. Why do you think it would be any different under Obama, Hillary, Lincoln, Thatcher, Blair, Castro, Kim Jong Un or Abe? The kind of democracy we have is bourgeois democracy - in place to protect the intersts of those owners of private property, thereby to assure functioning also protecting to some extent those interests of the people, to afford them the freedom necessary under capitalism, but no more.

It's not an issue of people v business, it's an issue of capital, which rules every country. It's not even businesses, it's capital itself.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#69

Post by twoodfin »

ficho wrote: post #49

"“Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake,” Pai said. “It’s basic economics: The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.” Just reading this makes me angry. Has he ever heard of monopolies / oligopolies, or simply the place of government in regulating public utilities. Apply his quote to water supplies and see what happens.

Demand for water isn't growing at nearly the rate of demand for bits. If communities expected their regulated water utilities to deliver twice as much water every 18-36 months, they'd be in for some tough times.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#70

Post by rayiner »

outsidetheparty wrote: post #30
splintercell wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? The fundamental idea is that the amount of investment done in a venture is directly proportional to the profitability of that venture. If govt makes a regulation saying that Google can provide Hangouts service, but it cannot charge more for Enterprise Hangouts features, then Google has no addi…

Eliminating net neutrality incentivizes ISPs to build auxiliary services that they can artificially support by throttling the bandwidth of competing products. It incentivizes them to seek profit by favoring some net traffic over other net traffic. It does not in any way incentivize them to build larger or better networks. It does not incentivize them to invest in their infrastructure. All it does is let them make mor…

That 97% number is bogus. It is computed by assuming that all the costs of the network are borne by video service, and that the broadband service is essentially pure profit. Look at carriers' actual audited financial statements: https://www.verizon.com/about/sites/default/files/annual/ver.... Verizon's wireline division had an operating profit margin of 5.8% in 2015, 2.7% in 2014, and 0.9% in 2013 (see page 24).
Post reply on HN