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

Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

battleforthenet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 388 posts

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#51

Post by mindcrime »

tony101 wrote: post #36
martin1975 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Ajit Pai says it stifles investments. Apparently investments fell by 5% or so over a period of time since the Title II classification. While I love NN, I also hate no viable competition to cable/ISP monopolies. I don't think NN would be an issue if everyone had at least 3 viable choices of broadband providers. That's the right (tm) way to address it, or should I say market-based, by fostering competition via po…

Lack of competition is because: 1) ISPs agree not to compete; and 2) It is expensive for new entrants to build infrastructure. It would be ideal to solve NN with free market. But the ISPs have monopolies that prevent competition. Making net neutrality necessary today.

1) ISPs agree not to compete; and --> probably not. Cartels don't work in practice, because there's always an incentive to cheat. Look how often OPEC nations pump more oil than they agreed to pump.

2) It is expensive for new entrants to build infrastructure. --> Yes, but if the ROI is sufficient, it can still get done.

3) Local / state government "franchise" agreements which grant incumbents monopoly (or near monopoly) status. --> the real killer. If the local government regulates you out of the market, it's game over.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#52

Post by xbmcuser »

martin1975 wrote: post #15
caburlingame wrote: post #6

Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.

Well, Ajit Pai says it stifles investments. Apparently investments fell by 5% or so over a period of time since the Title II classification. While I love NN, I also hate no viable competition to cable/ISP monopolies. I don't think NN would be an issue if everyone had at least 3 viable choices of broadband providers. That's the right (tm) way to address it, or should I say market-based, by fostering competition via po…

I think the free market proponents are harming US infrastructure and in the future competitiveness. Like roads and bridges etc are built with taxes. The internet infrastructure needs to be built or at least controled by the government federal, state or city. I like what Singapore did got bids and fixed prices for fiber deployment. Now all the isp's have to compete for providing services and the fiber deployer is paid the same by all of them. That is probably the best and cheapest way to build infrastructure. Currently in the US you have 2-3 companies doing their own fiber deployment in the same areas at 2-3 times the cost.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#53

Post by ryan-allen »

Nazzareno wrote: post #41

Internet money is made by the "over-the-top" (Google, Facebook & co.) leaving ISP to pay for the infrastructure. Net neutrality will allow ISP to bill users not only on bandwidth, but also based on what you do on the net. Ie: do you want a fast Youtube? Someone will have to pay (google or the users). They will be allowed to slow down some websites and speed up others, and that's really bad.

The US Government voted to bail out the corrupt bankers back in 2008, which I see as much more significant in terms of screwing over the general populace.

I'm afraid that this is the inevitable future we're going to be living in in terms of net neutrality, I believe it's only a matter of time.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#54

Post by gt_ »

trendia wrote: post #46
gt_ wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anyone arguing that? Links?

Facebook tried such a system in India [0]. "Called Free Basics, it provided only limited access to the Internet through a suite of websites and services that, unsurprisingly, included Facebook" https://www.cnet.com/news/why-india-doesnt-want-free-basics/

Of course this isn’t an argument. It’s not even anecdotal. Oprah gave free cars to her audience one day.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#55

Post by TimTheTinker »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #14
caburlingame wrote: post #6

Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.

I'm against net neutrality. It's essentially a wealth transfer from the infrastructure industry to the ad industry. It's pretty dumb imo.

What makes you think ending net neutrality would negatively affect the ad industry? They'll keep right on making their money, only they'll have one more venue -- ISPs injecting ads into other people's (non-HTTPS) pages.

ISPs are a natural monopoly and therefore must be carefully and thoroughly regulated, just like any other utility. Their job ought to be to provide a regulated standard of service at a regulated price, no more & no less -- just like your water and electric utilities.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#56

Post by veidr »

adventured wrote: post #37
veidr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong. One of the many bad consequences of this legislation is that Internet service will almost certainly become exactly like cable TV, as has already happened in places without such rules, in that you will be allowed to access a subset of the Internet for free/cheap, and will have to pay more for broader access. Why on earth would you think this would not happen? Because the tiny handful of telecom and cabl…

> Why on earth would you think this would not happen? How about the fact that in the prior 20+ years it did not happen. Comcast was just as powerful five years ago, as they are today. The access market was just as limited in terms of competition, 5 or 10 years ago. Your premise is that due to limited competition, it must occur. If that were how things actually worked, it would have occured before net neutrality in a…

First, 20 years ago, in 1997, it wouldn't have worked. Hop in your time machine and go back and ask random people on the street how many of them want to pay a monthly fee for "internet access". Follow up with a bonus question of which they'd keep if they had to choose, TV service or Internet.

Second, you are right, Comcast would have loved to turn the Internet into cable TV five years ago, and as a member of the protected oligopoly, they would be in a good position to do so, except... oh yeah, net neutrality regulations prevent that.

Third, now that we are in modern times where most people do use the internet, it already has occurred where no preventive measures exist. There are examples in this very thread; click them.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#57

Post by uluyol »

Nazzareno wrote: post #41

Internet money is made by the "over-the-top" (Google, Facebook & co.) leaving ISP to pay for the infrastructure. Net neutrality will allow ISP to bill users not only on bandwidth, but also based on what you do on the net. Ie: do you want a fast Youtube? Someone will have to pay (google or the users). They will be allowed to slow down some websites and speed up others, and that's really bad.

Net neutrality prevents your ISP from charging you based on the content you view, not the other way around.

I don't see how Google or Facebook fit in. By paying Comcast, I pay for them to build out their network and connect me to the whole internet. Why does Google's profits matter?

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#58

Post by rtx »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #42
caburlingame wrote: post #6

Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.

There really isn't a sound argument against net neutrality. Many do argue that the FCC shouldn't have the authority to regulate the internet, and often argue that idea to subtly change the subject. If someone argues to abolish something, they should either argue in favor of a replacement, or argue that that thing should not exist at all. Unfortunately, I haven't heard even a flawed version of either argument. Another…

If we want something for the public good, it should be publically funded.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#59

Post by Clanan »

I'm on the fence regarding this issue. The scaremongering on both sides is absolutely ridiculous. The planned order hasn't even been released! On the one hand, I can see why monopolistic powers in the hands of ISPs would be bad, but I like that the order would restore "police" powers to the FTC instead of the FCC, and I can't blame ISPs for wanting a piece of the $ pie. And it's not like the internet was a horrible wasteland until 2015.

But then again, Pai plan proponents keep saying this will spawn more innovation and improve utilities. That sounds pretty dubious and I haven't seen much proof. I don't recall any big innovation suddenly being stifled in 2015.

In my perfect world, the regulatory power would go back to the FTC but it would at the same time release a plan for opening up internet utility access so small players can compete with the big ones.

Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality

#60

Post by nkozyra »

adventured wrote: post #37
veidr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong. One of the many bad consequences of this legislation is that Internet service will almost certainly become exactly like cable TV, as has already happened in places without such rules, in that you will be allowed to access a subset of the Internet for free/cheap, and will have to pay more for broader access. Why on earth would you think this would not happen? Because the tiny handful of telecom and cabl…

> Why on earth would you think this would not happen? How about the fact that in the prior 20+ years it did not happen. Comcast was just as powerful five years ago, as they are today. The access market was just as limited in terms of competition, 5 or 10 years ago. Your premise is that due to limited competition, it must occur. If that were how things actually worked, it would have occured before net neutrality in a…

You're missing a key piece. As opposed to 20 years ago their core businesses (home telephone, cable television) have been in decline. As people cut the cord(s) these companies will need to further monetize the ISP aspects of their businesses to compensate.

It's not fair to look to the past to make predictions about the future here because the world was very different from a business perspective.

Post reply on HN