Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by hfsktr » Tue, May 02, 2017, 9:08 PM UTC

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 the second guy promised he wouldn't sell you his medicine because he only sells to the people in a different town.

Many places have 1 decent internet provider with no opportunity to change providers. Some places have an option if you downgrade significantly enough.

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

#122

Post by s73ver » Tue, May 02, 2017, 9:12 PM UTC

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…

You haven't answered the question as to why people who live in rural areas, where there likely wouldn't be competition anyway, don't deserve net neutrality.

And I'm sorry, but if the only reason you're giving internet "for free" is so that you can violate net neutrality, then you are not doing anyone a service.

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

#123

Post by s73ver » Tue, May 02, 2017, 9:12 PM UTC

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…

"In the long run, the only barrier to competition is regulatory capture"

Not true. There's the fact that for many places, they just can't support multiple choices for things like that. There's the equipment, which is extremely expensive anyways. There's running lines.

And, quite frankly, when you say that regulations should be removed, you're basically saying that those in less profitable markets, where there likely wouldn't be much competition even without regulation, don't deserve to have net neutrality.

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

#124

Post by deelowe » Tue, May 02, 2017, 9:19 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #87

deelowe wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most things, what really happened is complicated. Here's a good hn thread on the matter. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 If you have more interest in understanding the issue, there's plenty of good assessments. Everything from the explosion of wireless, to hdtv, to local municipalities, to mergers, and technological limitations are to blame.

I really wish that we as a society would spend less time sitting around figuring out who to blame for shit and actually invest in the things we claim to care about. I am sick to the back teeth of bullshit free market ideologies that have an extremely poor track record in reality. That does not mean I am opposed to or deny the value of markets.

I'm not sure the free market has much to do with it.

For example, in a lot of areas, the issue was simply local regulations and getting approvals from the local governments. It's hard to build a large metro ring when 1 of the 5 towns you need to go through won't approve the easement expansions necessary.

Or, as another example, should you continue to plow ahead with your fiber to the curb strategy when market forecasts are showing internet connected phone usage growing by multiple thousands of percent within the next 10 years?

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

#125

Post by forgotmysn » Tue, May 02, 2017, 9:32 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #120

forgotmysn wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sharehold…

> It's also because they are really bad at providing it. What makes you think that? A huge chunk of an ISPs' operating expenses go to paying people to move dirt around, and the metal and plastic they put in the dirt. How do you expect to disrupt that?

Second hand experience. My father owned and operated a small tv + ISP (cable when I was young, Internet by the time I was in middle school), and my uncle still operates his. Both have or had ~50k subscribers. My father sold his system to Comcast and worked for them for a while before quitting, frustrated by inefficiencies and dissatisfied customers, and his experience is the reason my Uncle is holding out from selling.

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

#126

Post by pseudalopex » Tue, May 02, 2017, 10:08 PM UTC

derekp7 wrote: post #94

mikehollinger wrote: post #79

It's hard for me to empathize (in the literal sense of the word) with someone who dislikes net neutrality. What're the reasons / justifications for why the current laws and rules are wrong or insufficient?

From what I understand, there is the concern that potential new technologies wouldn't be allowed under a strict interpretation of net neutrality. For a hypothetical example: go back in time when voice over IP first came on the scene. At that time there wasn't enough excess bandwidth to guarantee voice packets would arrive on time. Now you could prioritize voice traffic, but you'd have to either charge a fee, or find…

ISPs charging their own customers for prioritization is completely compatible with net neutrality. Detecting and prioritizing voice would be open to interpretation but would probably be considered reasonable network management. Letting people mark whatever they want as latency-sensitive but charging more for it? Totally fine.

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

#127

Post by caconym_ » Tue, May 02, 2017, 10:14 PM UTC

hfsktr wrote: post #121

pvnick wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the second guy promised he wouldn't sell you his medicine because he only sells to the people in a different town. Many places have 1 decent internet provider with no opportunity to change providers. Some places have an option if you downgrade significantly enough.

Exactly; the whole point is that there is not a free market here. Like I said, ISPs are a cartel.

It's funny, since these corporate goblins and their government lackeys spout bullshit about free market and competition and innovation and blah blah blah whenever someone asks them to justify their blatantly anti-consumer maneuvering (or something tangentially related).

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

#128

Post by snickerbockers » Tue, May 02, 2017, 10:17 PM UTC

s73ver wrote: post #122

snickerbockers wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You haven't answered the question as to why people who live in rural areas, where there likely wouldn't be competition anyway, don't deserve net neutrality. And I'm sorry, but if the only reason you're giving internet "for free" is so that you can violate net neutrality, then you are not doing anyone a service.

They don't deserve net neutrality if they choose to do business with an ISP that doesn't give it to them. You say that they don't have a choice because there's no competition; I say there's no competition because government regulations raise entry barriers and remove profit motives.

> And I'm sorry, but if the only reason you're giving internet "for free" is so that you can violate net neutrality, then you are not doing anyone a service.

You're certainly not doing anybody a service by trying to prevent a transaction that doesn't even involve you because you don't like the terms.

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

#129

Post by snickerbockers » Tue, May 02, 2017, 10:24 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #100

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.

Your claim is bullshit. There's a whole thread here with discussions in varying levels of detail about the market for internet services, and HN is a community with a lot of technical expertise, experience, and economic knowledge. When you make cliche ideological claims with zero supporting evidence that ignore all that pre-existing context, then I'm going to call bullshit every single time I see them. I do not think…

Here's net neutrality preventing millions of people in a developing nation from accessing the internet:

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

> HN is a community with a lot of technical expertise, experience, and economic knowledge.

ahahahahaha, no.

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

#130

Post by snickerbockers » Tue, May 02, 2017, 10:27 PM UTC

alphabettsy wrote: post #110

snickerbockers wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Because most lifeforms are capable of observational learning.

> 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.

I don't know what alternate universe you live in, but the government has been meddling in the telecom industry for a long time.