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

The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

rankscience.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 399 posts

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#71

Post by drivingmenuts »

haolez wrote: post #49

There is no "public" here. There is only "government". It might do a better job than Google at this. It might not.

I don’t think the government would be getting quality contractors to do the work to sort this out. They would be getting the lowest bidders who have a political axe to grind or an interest in inflating the contracts into a never-ending project with little to show for it, and offshore workers with little experience.

Just like every other government IT iniative.

Additionally, that would give the government direct access to a lot of sensitive information that people don’t really want them to have. While it probably has under-the-table access right now, do you really think having overt access is any better?

If the thought of having the government running a search engine, even at arms length, doesn’t leave you absolutely shitting yourself in terror, you have issues.

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#72

Post by tempsy »

revnode wrote: post #60
tempsy wrote: post #18

I would argue Visa and Mastercard and payment processing at large as the top priority by far. It's crazy that we've given up control as a society of the only mechanisms for electronic payments in an increasingly cashless world to unregulated private entities who continue to jack up fees as often as they can get away with. Makes everything 3-5% more expensive. Ridiculous.

While Visa and Mastercard are the big fish in the sea, they do have competition. There is also Discover and American Express. They also charge similar rates, which suggests that 3% fee isn't random. Not sure where 4%/5% came from, fees average out to somewhere between 2%-3% for small merchants.

almost all processors add a fixed fee on top of the 3% eg 30 cents. if you are a coffee shop or convenience store that is a much higher % of the average purchase price than a merchant that sells something more expensive.

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#73

Post by pb7 »

revnode wrote: post #60
tempsy wrote: post #18

I would argue Visa and Mastercard and payment processing at large as the top priority by far. It's crazy that we've given up control as a society of the only mechanisms for electronic payments in an increasingly cashless world to unregulated private entities who continue to jack up fees as often as they can get away with. Makes everything 3-5% more expensive. Ridiculous.

While Visa and Mastercard are the big fish in the sea, they do have competition. There is also Discover and American Express. They also charge similar rates, which suggests that 3% fee isn't random. Not sure where 4%/5% came from, fees average out to somewhere between 2%-3% for small merchants.

It's just price stickiness. Same reason why all music streaming platforms charge $10/month and something like $15/month for a family plan.

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#74

Post by tempsy »

revnode wrote: post #69
satyrnein wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely have concerns about the stranglehold the payment processors have, but does it really make everything 3-5% more expensive? My understanding was that a good chunk of the 3% fee is given back to consumers as cash back or rewards, and that dealing with cash also had costs for businesses.

This is correct. The best you can usually do is 2% cash back, so really the consumer is being charged 1% for the convenience of using a credit card. Obviously most consider that worth it, which is why credit cards are so popular.

right now we have a situation where the rich (who pay for things with expensive premium credit cards) are being subsidized by the poor (using cash or basic credit cards) because interchange is much higher for the top of line credit cards.

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#75

Post by tomweingarten »

ryanb wrote: post #9
tomweingarten wrote: post #3

One of the more obvious pieces of misinformation here: ChowNow does not charge any per-order commission fee, it's right on their pricing page -- https://get.chownow.com/pricing . ChowNow is also not the only provider Google Maps works with, restaurants have options. Did this author do any fact checking at all?

The minimum price to be on ChowNow is $99/mo on a 2 year plan. It's not free.

That's correct but your article says "which charges an added hefty fee to the restaurant for each order", which is simply not true.

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#77

Post by shadowgovt »

panarky wrote: post #17
ArtDev wrote: post #6

Let's get cable internet regulated like a utility first. Then afterwards we can talk about competing services on the internet. Anti-competitive behavior should be addressed but let's get our priorities straight.

Regulation priorities: 1. Organized disinfo like this https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/11/qanon-facebo... 2. Cable and telco monopolies that charge extortionate prices for slow internet 3. Facebook 4. Scam robocallers 5. Microsoft forcing Teams, Edge, and dozens of other apps on users by installing them with Windows security updates

It's a little disquieting that our first priority for (public) regulation is "The First Amendment has failed as a construct; let's prevent people from sharing information in public fora that we know is false."

I'd hazard that if that's where we're starting from, we won't end at a good place trying to use the force of public regulation to solve these problems. :(

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#78

Post by pb7 »

kevmo wrote: post #35
ALittleLight wrote: post #11

One Google quirk I've been thinking about lately is the times when you search for something and the thing you want is the top advertised and organic result. Seems like a waste of money. An example, if you search for "heroku" then you get an ad for heroku, which, yeah, is what I was searching for, but heroku is also the top result and obviously what I was looking for. Heroku is paying Google to provide Google with the…

It's a digital protection racket.

Is this any different from putting up a billboard next to a restaurant for a competing restaurant?

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#79

Post by beders »

s3r3nity wrote: post #61
sjroot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DDG, Yahoo, Bing, are all valid alternatives. Why does Google get screwed after the enormous investment they made (with time and money) to index pages on the internet?

> Why does Google get screwed after the enormous investment they made (with time and money) to index pages on the internet? If that was _all_ they did for the past 20 years to get to where they are today, there wouldn't be any problem. The issue is when you leverage this market gain to punish competitors and expand into spaces at below cost (read: negative profits) to wipe out competitors and gain footholds. See exam…

It's not regulations we need, it is better education. Especially skeptical thinking.

No one would expect Google to not suppress search results that harms its business. It is called capitalism.

And internet citizens should know that and actively make use of competing offers.

It's like going to a Honda car dealer and expecting to get offered the best deal on a Toyota.

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#80

Post by download13 »

Yeah... But maybe first we should have a coherent system for regulating public utilities. Like just having whatever president shows up appoint someone who basically has full control of how things in their purview are managed... well... there's probably room for improvement
Post reply on HN