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

231–240 of 399 posts

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

#231

Post by jeffbee »

wz1000 wrote: post #218
jeffbee wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are currently zero governments and only about 4 commercial entities possessing a datacenter large enough to do the job.

Doesn't the NSA have a bunch of massive datacenters? Regardless of that, the datacenter can be appropriated by the government too.

No, the NSA has one facility that would be a small/medium datacenter in the big league, but only if you assume that the NSA is as efficient as Google, which is a bit of a stretch.

NSA Utah: 65 MW Google Pryor, Oklahoma: 340 MW

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

#232

Post by Shared404 »

anoncake wrote: post #176
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.

Let's prioritize bickering about what our priorities should be.

Well, I disagree. I don't think we should bicker about that, that seems like a crazy idea.

Instead, lets prioritize building out our internet infrastructure.

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

#233

Post by scarface74 »

CPLX wrote: post #223
scarface74 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The settlement did no such thing. The fact that not only Google spammed chrome ads on the most popular web page but they also bundled Chrome with third party installers led to the rise of Chrome.

Chrome was launched in 2008. The key events in the Microsoft antitrust case happened between 1992 and 2002.

And look at IEs market share until 2008....

https://www.jitbit.com/news/3304-browser-market-shares-1993-...

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

#234

Post by qshqwudhoquc »

stickfigure wrote: post #129
shakna wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every device that I can think of allows you to choose a default search engine. Users, overwhelming, do not change defaults. Period. Unless there is a step where they are shown a range of options and select one, this is not an active choice for them.

Citizens (at least in the US), overwhelmingly, don't vote. But that doesn't mean this isn't a democracy.

The second half of that sentence is doing a lot of heavy lifting to get your point across.

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

#235

Post by Shared404 »

jquery wrote: post #147

Google is way too innovative to be relegated to public utility status. Much better would be to consider an antitrust breakup.

I don't know how innovative they are these days, it seems like a lot of effective copying.

That being said, I would prefer an antitrust style breakup to them being regulated outright.

maybe something like breaking them into: (GMail/Docs etc.)/(Youtube)/(Search)/(Android/ChromeOS)

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

#236

Post by Supermancho »

marta_morena_25 wrote: post #199
jancsika wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a beautiful implementation of a tactic to shift a conversation. OP starts with a seemingly related pivot to the topic of how to prioritize the regulation of a company like Google with the regulation of other companies. Such a conversation would obviously involve at least few points about why Google ought not top the list. (And hopefully many points given OP says Google is "by far" not top priority.) I was cer…

Anyway, there are bigger problems in the world than Google. While I am not sure payment processing is more urgent that regulating Google, there are many other things that are orders of magnitudes more important to tackle than regulating Google.

"Anyway", talking about the relative morality of the discussion is a derail from the ostensible topic.

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

#237

Post by crazygringo »

This is a weird headline.

"Regulated as a public utility" means, economically, that prices/profits are set by law -- that there's only one electricity provider but they can't jack up prices because there's no competition.

That makes no sense when applied to Google.

The type of remedy appropriate for what the author describes (Google favoring their own products in search) is relatively simple. That Google, Amazon, and others -- anybody who runs any kind of search mechanism, store, etc. -- are not allowed to give their own products preferential priority.

Public utilities are a super-weird and unhelpful analogy.

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

#238

Post by rayiner »

The western world has just spent decades engaged in a vast project of regulating fewer things "as a public utility." http://www.oecd.org/economy/growth/15172081.pdf. Public utility regulation is hard and often doesn't work very well. Any case for extending public utility regulation into new areas should tackle and overcome those trends to explain why such regulation is warranted in the new space accounting for all the reasons why we have been trying to reduce the amount of such regulation.

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

#239

Post by JAlexoid »

chrisco255 wrote: post #95
shadowgovt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is 100% nothing stopping the Federal government from offering a full-faith-and-credit-backed "America electronic transaction system" for electronic transactions, with those fees handled by taxes. But much as there's nothing stopping the Federal government from greatly simplifying the burden and toil of tax season by issuing 90% of Americans a pre-filled-out "This is what you owe; sign this and return it or disp…

Right, the same government that couldn't get a healthcare website going is supposed to also power every single transaction from internal infrastructure. There are hidden costs that are much higher than 3% to giving the government full control over every transaction in society. It's a single point of failure with no redundancy or decentralization, a large attack vector, and a human rights nightmare. As a general rule,…

US space program was mostly privately developed, in any case.

Saying "look as SpaceX" isn't much of a "government failed" as much as "Boeing failed miserably and lobbied hard to cover their failures".

That said - the government can be a facilitator without being the operator, and it shouldn't be the operator in this case.

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

#240

Post by phkahler »

jancsika wrote: post #175
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.

This is a beautiful implementation of a tactic to shift a conversation. OP starts with a seemingly related pivot to the topic of how to prioritize the regulation of a company like Google with the regulation of other companies. Such a conversation would obviously involve at least few points about why Google ought not top the list. (And hopefully many points given OP says Google is "by far" not top priority.) I was cer…

I wanted to say I dont think Googles dominance would be such an issue if they were forced to stop collecting personal data to target ads. IMHO they are already in decline in terms of relevant (to the user) search results.
Post reply on HN