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

151–160 of 275 posts

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#151

Post by shmerl »

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…

> why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality?

Because we have no free market in the ISP business. It's close to a sick monopoly, or to cartels which agree on fixing high prices. If the government won't reign it, who will?

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#152

Post by dasil003 »

Theodores wrote: post #124
SwellJoe wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 o…

Thank you for that. The situation is different in the UK, at least with my ISP. They have teamed up with Netflix rather than throttled them. http://about.virginmedia.com/press-release/9410/virgin-media... In the UK cable TV took a lot longer to arrive than in the US. When it arrived it quickly merged into some monster debt vehicle that had to be refinanced somehow. Nobody really went for cable, it took on a new life…

I moved from Mountain View to London and I have to say the whole telecom system is night and day better in the UK. It's embarrassing how the wool has been pulled over the eyes of Americans in terms of believing that the country has good telecom infrastructure and value.

In the UK I pay £10($16)/month for my mobile service on pay-as-you-go vs $70/month on contract in the US (which high limits than I needed, but it was the cheapest I could get). Similarly, I pay £30($50)/month for my FTTC connection from BT, which gives me actual sustained speeds night and day of 75/15mbps up/down vs something like $80/month (and it rose by a dollar or so every single month) for a highly variable 10/2mbps up/down cable from Comcast in Mountain View that suffered heavily during prime time.

Oh, and don't get me started on nationalized healthcare and the willfully ignorant propaganda that has been fed to and swallowed by the American people hook line and sinker.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#153

Post by grannyg00se »

burntsushi wrote: post #111
bowlofpetunias wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers don't decide shit. Consumers are people that buy stuff, nothing more. The people that decide are called citizens or "voters". (Also, Google is probably one of the worst examples imaginable for arguing the market should make such decisions.)

Who decided that the automobile would replace the horse and buggy for most modes of personal transportation? Consumers.

Early horseless carriages didn't sell well, if at all. Consumers weren't making the decision to replace the horse and carriage. Continuous innovation and industry and government did that.

Not until the choice is taken away do consumers (appear to) make a change.

We could all be driving electric cars right now if consumers were making real choices. But we won't see a great number of electrics selling until they become so good that the gasoline car is practically taken off of the table as a viable choice. You can then credit the change to the consumers, but it's really much greater forces at work behind the scenes making it happen.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#154

Post by argumentum »

jjoonathan wrote: post #120
argumentum wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 agreeme…

> Do I get equal access to the existing infrastructure (presumably paid for by the existing monopoly)? No, the existing company retains ownership of the infrastructure they paid for and the ability to charge anyone whatever the heck they want for using it. Also, they retain all rights granted in private contracts (not involving government at the federal, state, or municipal level). > Second, who am i? A startup [with…

I was in the middle of writing a long-winded reply, but I'd rather just agree to disagree on philosophy and economics. I'm also not the right person to come up with the winning business plan to your scenario (little knowledge of the ISP market other than as a consumer).

And ultimately I probably agree with you about how to deal with the situation right now, in that we shouldn't lose net neutrality when the ISPs are clearly public/private partnerships, not independently operating entities in a free market.

Where we disagree is whether or not it is possible to create the conditions for a truly competitive market primarily by reducing state involvement. I believe it is.

In my opinion, fears of private monopolies are generally unwarranted, that most "natural" private monopolies are flimsy and temporary. I fear more the monopolies created by the government, such as the monopoly that "licensed" physicians hold over what substances we put in our body, who gets to sell us information about our own DNA, who gets to invest in startups ("accredited" investors) etc.

In the long run, I think our freedom is better protected by fighting against artificial monopolies such as these ..

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#155

Post by XorNot »

argumentum wrote: post #117
Retric wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm, the only way you would have access to there infrastructure is with heavy regulation so no there is no access to any of it. Suggesting otherwise is seriously ignoring the question. PS: 1 billion in capital no regulation no access to any existing infrastructure no magic wand and the only way you can dig is to convince the local government or individuals that there is so reason to let you dig aka spend money. Which…

Clearly a local government is going to be less receptive to more digging if high speed service is in place, but it's not a "natural" monopoly if a deal with the government must be made as a prerequisite to provide services. You are also assuming that the "digger" is necessarily the service provider. In my view, local governments are basically seduced by telcos subsidizing or eliminating the up front costs of building…

Ah, yes it is? Someone owns that land, and it's not you. And for that matter, you want to see expensive, wait till you have to convince 10,000 property owners individually to let you trench up their gardens.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#156

Post by rhizome »

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…

You might also look at Braess' Paradox[1], which while often applied to traffic planning, tells us that a network of nodes that choose their options selfishly will not result in improved performance when expanding that network (increase in number of possible choices).

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#157

Post by jwallaceparker »

amarv1n wrote: post #133
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…

We regulate car safety even though there is some competition among car companies. If competition did not lead to net neutrality, then we should still mandate it. Also, it's true, as others have noted, that competition among ISPs won't be enough to ensure net neutrality because there can't be enough competition (either through regulatory capture or natural monopoly economics). However, even if there were competition,…

> I'm a huge fan of free markets, but there are market failures requiring some government intervention in the form of contract law, property law and its exemptions, and regulation in specific situations.

I agree that contract and property law need to be enforced - this is a vital component of a free market. But I don't consider that regulation or intervention.

What are the "specific situations" that demand regulation?

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#158

Post by burntsushi »

grannyg00se wrote: post #153
burntsushi wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decided that the automobile would replace the horse and buggy for most modes of personal transportation? Consumers.

Early horseless carriages didn't sell well, if at all. Consumers weren't making the decision to replace the horse and carriage. Continuous innovation and industry and government did that. Not until the choice is taken away do consumers (appear to) make a change. We could all be driving electric cars right now if consumers were making real choices. But we won't see a great number of electrics selling until they become…

If consumers wanted to continue using the horse-and-buggy, they would have continued to buy it. But they didn't. The desired the automobile.

I'm not sure how the notion that "consumers don't decide anything" can really hold water. Consumers are literally the people who allocate their resources to particular goods.

In some cases, external forces remove or enforce particular choices. But I don't know how this implies that consumers can't decide anything.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#159

Post by wpietri »

ewillbefull wrote: post #44
dkuntz2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would you have enforce net neutrality?

The only thing that needs to be enforced is anti-trust law. Monopolies are what give ISPs the ability, and perhaps the incentive, to filter and editorialize the Internet. The FTC should be involved in defending consumers against those behaviors. Net neutrality arises naturally. It didn't need enforcement 30 years ago. In some contexts, like exotic network protocols, it may not even make sense. I wouldn't care much if…

Wait, 30 years ago? Actually, net neutrality needed substantial government help. The parallel at the time is the long distance market. Read about the history of Sprint, MCI, and the like.

And it goes back further. At one point, you weren't even allowed to connect your own phone to the network, let alone an answering machine; AT&T claimed it was too dangerous. So you had to rent everything from Ma Bell. It wasn't until the Carterphone case in 1968, where the FCC told AT&T to knock it off, that you saw things get better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone#Landmark_regulatory_...

As much as I would like anti-trust law to help here, you don't need collusion or a monopoly to ruin net neutrality. As long as you have an oligopoly, which is the general state of the US residential ISP market, then that's plenty. As we see in the article as soon as one ISP starts a shakedown, the other big ones will try the same thing.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#160

Post by alexeisadeski3 »

dkuntz2 wrote: post #123
alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people prefer to buy cheap crap instead of quality.

Even if cheap actively hinders them from doing something they want to do ?

You don't think YouTube & Facebook & iTunes would pony up?
Post reply on HN