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

Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 155 posts

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#101

Post by snickerbockers »

s73ver wrote: post #68
snickerbockers wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because government regulations create artificial entry barriers that preclude a free and open market. It's foolhardy to believe that adding more regulations will solve anything.

Starting an ISP is incredibly expensive, even if you didn't have regulations. If you got rid of all ISP regulations tomorrow, you would be lucky if in 3 years you'd start to see competition. And most places wouldn't be valuable enough to have more than one provider. When you argue for getting rid of these regulations, you're basically saying that a bunch of people don't deserve quality, neutral internet.

I've been to rural areas, I'm well aware that millions of people live without reliable high-speed internet connections all over the United States, and those regulations you support haven't fixed it.

Meanwhile, there are poor people in India who aren't going to get internet access because they can't afford it themselves, and net neutrality legislation has removed the profit-motive that would have incentivized private corporations to provide it to them for free.

And net neutrality advocates are cheering it on like it's a huge victory that they've deprived all these people of modern technology.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/08/india-fac...

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#102

Post by anigbrowl »

declan wrote: post #51
amccollum wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your post: It makes more sense for Congress to come up with a lasting solution that isn't subject to regulatory bounce-back, and this is what the bill being described in the article seems to do. From the article: But from what we know about Lee's bill so far, it appears the proposal wouldn't impose any type of net neutrality rules to replace the current ones. Wherein lies the so-called "lasting solution"?

Any lasting solution would be negotiated by Congress.

When, and why not now?

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#103

Post by anigbrowl »

pvnick wrote: post #70
jressey wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barriers to entry in the ISP game are too high for competition. Google can't even hack it. What is your perspective as a free-market advocate in this scenario?

Wait patiently for the inevitable correction. E.g. innovation like this and other things we can't even imagine yet: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/17/elon-musk...

Let's ban all regulation. You can't imagine what wonderful things I could achieve if I could just help myself to your capital. I know that sounds like a bad deal for you but market forces will prove me right in the end, just wait and see.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#104

Post by anigbrowl »

pvnick wrote: post #77
s73ver wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Most people have only one choice for ISP, and that wouldn't change if you got rid of all federal regulation on them. Therefore, regulations are required in order to make sure that people don't get fucked by their ISP.

Correction: "Most people currently have..." In the long run, the only barrier to competition is regulatory capture, which is much harder to overcome than short-term problems like there not being enough competition. Technical challenges are a lot easier to solve than regulatory challenges, which 100% of the time increase the barrier to entry by, among other things, raising the cost of compliance (have to pay more lawy…

Regulatory capture seems to be much less of a problem at the FCC than it does at the state level, where ISP lobbyists have convinced various state governments to forbid the construction of things like municipal broadband networks. Get back to us after you've solved the smaller problem.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#105

Post by forgotmysn »

jdminhbg wrote: post #97
forgotmysn wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> merely $2B in profits last year I've never seen billions of dollars in profits dismissed so casually. >ISPs have terrible customer service because most of their efforts are going into keeping those wires and fibres intact. ISP's in other countries, even ones of similar scale to the US, don't have to chose between quality customer service and quality internet service. To call your argument facile would be overly gen…

> I've never seen billions of dollars in profits dismissed so casually. Comcast has around 25 million customers [0], so that's around $65/year/customer. So if you cut that profit to $0, you can return $5/month on combined TV and internet to each customer. When people say "cable and internet are so expensive," they don't generally mean "if I got a $5 price cut I would be happy." [0]: http://expandedramblings.com/index…

I'm not suggesting that fast, consistent internet service is cheap to provide. However, I'm also not convinced that comcast's prices aren't as high as they are, and their margins as low as they are, only because its a costly service to provide. It's also because they are really bad at providing it.

But that wasn't even my main point. My point is that Comcast is more interested in providing a return to their shareholders than they in providing effective and satisfying customer service.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#106

Post by pvnick »

jressey wrote: post #89
pvnick wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait patiently for the inevitable correction. E.g. innovation like this and other things we can't even imagine yet: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/17/elon-musk...

Your answer actually resonates with me to some degree. It is not my position but I get it and think it would work in an ideal world without corrupted officials. As it stands, I see the less advanced technology thriving for longer than it should, for example fossil fuels today are not being replaced at a pace that would align with what the market demands. More and better government programs to increase sustainable ene…

You're right - government officials (not necessarily corrupt even) write legislation influenced by lobbyists who are hired by the big guys to protect their own interests. All legislation is influenced by lobbyists. It's just the name of the game. More legislation and regulation generally has the opposite effect of getting in the way of innovation and market efficiency.

Regarding sustainable energy - a lot of government funding is already going to that in the form of research grants awarded to people in academia looking at those things. We can increase funding, but that's already happening. The surest way to kill those chances would be, for example, create a carbon tax which has the effects of getting government dependent on revenue coming from fossil fuel emissions, and introduces incentives to ensure that revenue source continues.

Regarding your last question - I don't know. Haven't done the research. But I have read enough of classical economics to know that it's probably not a big deal - or if it is an issue that it will be short-lived. If the consumer is sufficiently fucked then it is the corporation who will have shot themselves in the foot. Law of supply and demand in action

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#107

Post by pvnick »

anigbrowl wrote: post #104
pvnick wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correction: "Most people currently have..." In the long run, the only barrier to competition is regulatory capture, which is much harder to overcome than short-term problems like there not being enough competition. Technical challenges are a lot easier to solve than regulatory challenges, which 100% of the time increase the barrier to entry by, among other things, raising the cost of compliance (have to pay more lawy…

Regulatory capture seems to be much less of a problem at the FCC than it does at the state level, where ISP lobbyists have convinced various state governments to forbid the construction of things like municipal broadband networks. Get back to us after you've solved the smaller problem.

I think the influence that you and I both have to address either issue is limited to posting comments on threads that get flagged off the front page of a website whose readership is limited to nerds in Silicon Valley.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#108

Post by pvnick »

caconym_ wrote: post #86
pvnick wrote: post #80

Only children cry for grownups when they don't get their way. If you receive enough value from your internet and cell phone that you are willing to spend $50/month for those services, then that is what they are worth.

If your child is dying and I have a medicine that can save him but my price is that you hand over your life's savings and become a slave in my salt mines for the rest of your life, and you do it because you don't want your kid to die, was it worth it? Or is there something else going on? ISPs are a cartel protected by corrupt politicians. Let's sort that out before we start claiming that the free market is working an…

First question - yes, duh. Except it is unrealistic in the context of free market because some other guy will just copy your drug and sell it to me for the cost of half of my life savings. A silly argument you have made.

Second paragraph - get the corrupt politicians out of the picture and the problem solves itself.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#109

Post by caconym_ »

pvnick wrote: post #108
caconym_ wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your child is dying and I have a medicine that can save him but my price is that you hand over your life's savings and become a slave in my salt mines for the rest of your life, and you do it because you don't want your kid to die, was it worth it? Or is there something else going on? ISPs are a cartel protected by corrupt politicians. Let's sort that out before we start claiming that the free market is working an…

First question - yes, duh. Except it is unrealistic in the context of free market because some other guy will just copy your drug and sell it to me for the cost of half of my life savings. A silly argument you have made. Second paragraph - get the corrupt politicians out of the picture and the problem solves itself.

> Except it is unrealistic in the context of free market because some other guy will just copy your drug and sell it to me for the cost of half of my life savings. A silly argument you have made.

What if I have a patent on it? ;)

> get the corrupt politicians out of the picture and the problem solves itself.

Sounds great! Let's do that!

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#110

Post by alphabettsy »

snickerbockers wrote: post #101
s73ver wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starting an ISP is incredibly expensive, even if you didn't have regulations. If you got rid of all ISP regulations tomorrow, you would be lucky if in 3 years you'd start to see competition. And most places wouldn't be valuable enough to have more than one provider. When you argue for getting rid of these regulations, you're basically saying that a bunch of people don't deserve quality, neutral internet.

I've been to rural areas, I'm well aware that millions of people live without reliable high-speed internet connections all over the United States, and those regulations you support haven't fixed it. Meanwhile, there are poor people in India who aren't going to get internet access because they can't afford it themselves, and net neutrality legislation has removed the profit-motive that would have incentivized private…

How about making your argument without shifting it to the other side of the globe.

The brand new regulations that have been fought by the same people introducing this bill haven't been effective? Duh, they weren't even in existence long enough.

Sure the best way would be for our lawmakers to actually make laws protecting privacy and providing basic consumer protections rather than relying on the FCC, but Congress is almost completely dysfunctional.

Post reply on HN