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

We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 275 posts

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#101

Post by coldtea »

hayksaakian wrote: post #69
dippyskoodlez wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Google Fiber, in markets where it's available, has led to competitors reducing prices and offering better service. However, there's no word of change regarding net neutrality. As a KC resident, TWC has not yet reduced my internet costs or increased speeds.

I'll say my only knowledge of this was anecdotal (from others) I can say first hand, that if you call your ISP and say "I'm switching to X service at $Y for Zmbps" you can get your bill reduced.

>I can say first hand, that if you call your ISP and say "I'm switching to X service at $Y for Zmbps" you can get your bill reduced.

Except if you're one of those millions that live in rural areas with only one ISP.

Or if the major ISPs in your area are complicit in keeping prices up and enjoy a pre-arranged share of the market each.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#102

Post by davorak »

belorn wrote: post #72
blhack wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Forbidding servers on their network is a completely rational stance for them to take. Do you also get upset at "all-you-can-eat" buffets when they don't let you fill a barrel full of food to take home and eat later?

I do get upset if the commercial say "up to 20 different kind of food, and all-you-can-eat", but during lunch rush it is just a couple of carrots that looks half moldy. One aspect of net neutrality is advertizement laws and clear communication between the commercial entity and the consumer. A restaurant can't just say that "its up to!" and give you a carrot when you paid $50 for a buffet, complaining that their capac…

I thought the wording of the contract had already changed to be specific to commercial activity, at least in KC. Am I remembering things incorrectly?

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#103

Post by argumentum »

jjoonathan wrote: post #88
argumentum wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all "natural". The cost is so high partially due to special agreements between these corporations and governments, from local agreements to lay down fiber, to national agreements regarding the use of the electromagnetic spectrum.

US Telcos = Natural Monopoly + Regulatory Capture > The cost is so high partially due to special agreements This is true, but it doesn't contradict the fact that telcos are also natural monopolies. Let's play a game: pretend that all of these special agreements have suddenly become invalid and the market has become deregulated. Assume you have (or can acquire) the technical expertise to challenge them. What's your bu…

There's a lot of ambiguity in your scenario. Do I get equal access to the existing infrastructure (presumably paid for by the existing monopoly)? Assuming this deregulation comes along with some law or judicial ruling that no local government can create such an ongoing monopoly, there would likely be created a separate industry that simply builds infrastructure at some price to the locality with no continuing agreement.

Second, who am i? A startup? Since this is a fantasy world, I imagine I'd have invented some new tech that would substantially reduce the cost of operating an ISP. I'd pitch that to investors and raise enough to get of the ground?

But that's only one way I might enter the market. I may be Google, or even an existing telco looking to expand my turf.

My overarching answer is simply: I don't know, but let's get rid of the artificial constraints on the market and see what results. In most unregulated industries, quality rises and price falls (in the long run). There may be exceptions, but which industries do you see this not happening:

1. Finance 2. Medicine 3. Utilities 4. ?

All industries with close connection to the state. I'd wager that sans these connections, things would be a lot different.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#104

Post by maaku »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #4
maaku wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes that amusing?

Seriously? Because they're demanding the freedom of the telcos be overridden in favor of our own personal interests.

> Because they're demanding the freedom of the telcos be overridden in favor of our own personal interests.

Imagine that someone was allowed to own the air, and then control / privileged what you are allowed to say (sound waves). Would your opinion be different?

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#105

Post by FrankenPC »

smithzvk wrote: post #70
pvnick wrote: post #20

I consider everybody here very smart. In many cases smarter than myself. Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality? Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide. Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch s…

> If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide. If you leave it up to the prisoners, they will both rat each other out resulting in the worst possible outcome ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma ). Assuming that consumers will decide what is best for the whole of society is simply incorrect. "Internet innovation" is very much one of those big picture goals where I think some community planning (e…

Brilliant. If a solution appears over-simplified, it probably is. Like a reverse razor.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#106

Post by argumentum »

jjoonathan wrote: post #84
fleitz wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telecom isn't a natural monopoly, it's a government sponsored cartel.

While you are correct that telcos currently enjoy a certain degree of regulatory capture, they are also natural monopolies/oligopolies in the sense that competitors have an astronomical barrier to entry. It's tempting but naive to think that all we need to do in order to see the market right itself is to eliminate existing regulations. What we actually need to do is to change regulations to encourage competition, bot…

> .. by eliminating explicit monopoly rights and by mandating and/or price-controlling B2B bandwidth/traffic sales ...

Are you willing to try the former before the latter? If so, I don't think we're far off .. I'm not an absolutist, if there is a compelling case after the artificial constraints are removed, then I might consider state intervention as a last resort. But not before giving the free market a fair shot.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#107

Post by SwellJoe »

Theodores wrote: post #93
hayksaakian wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is that the free market will favor ISPs that support/don't oppose net-neutrality. I argue that most people won't care about their "choice" (air quotes, because most people can't pick from more than 2 ISPs) of ISP until it's too late. Already you have ISPs throttling access to streaming video sites (netflix, youtube, twitch) with little to no REAL blowback. With the barriers to entry as high as they are,…

My ISP - Virgin in the UK - has a transparent proxy cache for streaming video sites. If I want to watch an episode of Breaking Bad then it is there, instant. However, that 1992 B-side tack with 200 views 'buffers' for a while. That probably is because it is not cached down the road or further upstream at some Akamai CDN. It probably has to come straight from the heart of the GooglePlex, Sergei's very own hard drive..…

"why would they throttle?"

Because they want to slow the demise of their television business unit. Many of the telcos here in the states not only also offer cable television service, they also directly compete with Netflix (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/0...). If they can make Netflix slower than the Comcast online offering (and they can), then more users will often choose the Comcast offering, even if it is inferior in every other way...and, most nefariously, the consumer probably won't know why Netflix is "so slow" and Comcast streaming is so fast.

In short, Telcos want the ability to kill their rivals, without having to provide a better product. They succeeded in doing so during the 90s on the broadband Internet front (there used to be thousands of independent ISPs in the US; they were killed by the telcos abusing their monopoly power, it's a story I've told here before, and so won't go into again).

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#108

Post by alexeisadeski3 »

dkuntz2 wrote: post #21
alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may have been monopolies once, but they're not anymore. At least in the US. Most people already have two broadband subscriptions: home cable broadband and HSPA+ or LTE. The home cable broadband is in competition with ADSL throughout much of the nation, and the HSPA+/LTE providers are in fierce competition everywhere. Furthermore, what makes you say this: >In a free market, net neutrality wouldn't need to be regu…

Why wouldn't you expect them to lose market share? They're actively hindering customers from their desired actions. Doesn't that typically mean customers will look for alternatives?

Most people prefer to buy cheap crap instead of quality.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#109

Post by platinum1 »

davorak wrote: post #102
belorn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do get upset if the commercial say "up to 20 different kind of food, and all-you-can-eat", but during lunch rush it is just a couple of carrots that looks half moldy. One aspect of net neutrality is advertizement laws and clear communication between the commercial entity and the consumer. A restaurant can't just say that "its up to!" and give you a carrot when you paid $50 for a buffet, complaining that their capac…

I thought the wording of the contract had already changed to be specific to commercial activity, at least in KC. Am I remembering things incorrectly?

You are correct: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/google...

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#110

Post by FrankenPC »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #2

I find it amusing that those in favor of net neutrality consider themselves on the side of freedom.

Where I live, I only have one choice for internet provider (Comcast). One choice. And I should trust them with content censorship? I would be in idiot to believe this is anything but a terrible idea.
Post reply on HN