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

171–180 of 275 posts

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#171

Post by sounds »

wpietri wrote: post #143
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…

You should go read about the history of the Internet. AT&T was a major barrier to early efforts in creating the Internet. See, e.g., http://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/06848326... In my view, the breakup of the Bell System laid the groundwork for the Internet to thrive. For that matter, read about the origins of antitrust law. Monopolies and oligopolies neutralize the market's usual power to straight…

I plan on doing this. I'm actually excited for the day when I get to nail Verizon for discriminating against my business.

(I wish I were youtube.)

Here's what I plan to do, and please tell me what you would think if you saw this:

"Hi, Verizon customer! We've detected that Verizon is hurting your speeds to reach us, while favoring access to _____ (competitor). Click on this link to see some other internet service providers in your area. If you'd like to file a complaint with the FCC, click here. If you'd like to get a refund, this link has instructions. If you'd like to join a class action suit, a discussion is occuring at this link."

We'll of course not list competitors where there are none.

Proportional to your popularity, it might even be possible to hurt Verizon's bottom line.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/why-yo... says you may have Net Neutrality issues already if you are subscribed to:

• Verizon

• Comcast

• Time Warner Cable

• Deutsche Telecom, Orange, Telefónica

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#172

Post by declan »

Marvin, the author of the Wired.com opinion piece, is a smart fellow. But what he ignores is that Congress never handed the FCC the authority to impose Net neutrality regulations on the Internet. Such legislation actually came up for a vote in Congress, and it came close to passage: it was reported favorably out of a Senate committee but was defeated in a House floor vote in 2006: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.html

Even if you adore the principle of Net neutrality, it's reasonable to demand that federal regulatory agencies stick to what Congress authorized them to do. Otherwise you have illegal regulations and bureaucratic turf-grabbing that will not treat the Internet well. Remember Hollywood's successful efforts to lobby the FCC to impose "broadcast flags" on computers by bureaucratic fiat? A federal appeals court correctly struck it down as exceeding the agency's legal authority, as I wrote here in 2005: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-5697719.html

That same appeals court is currently considering the FCC's Net neutrality regulations. BTW, it's also the same court that slapped down the FCC's first attempt to impose Net neutrality regulations without legal authority in 2010: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html

If Net neutrality violations become an actual problem, there's no shortage of publicity-hungry politicians in Congress (hi, Ed Markey!) who will hold hearings and push legislation forward. Obama will happily sign it. Until then, other government debacles including NSA domestic surveillance and Obamacare should make us wary of federal agencies exceeding their legal authority -- especially after Congress considered and rejected a law that would have given it to them in the first place.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#173

Post by amarv1n »

jwallaceparker wrote: post #157
amarv1n wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

property law is definitely a form of regulation. go to a country without regulation, like afghanistan, and you'll see no property law :) there's an entire semester in law school on the intricacies of property law, including fee simple, easements, etc., because property law doesn't come from heaven, it's made by men to regulate our affairs. beyond that, of course, there's regulation of restaurants, securities regulation, regulation of wireless spectrum regarding interference, regulation of satellite orbital slots, regulation of food safety, of drugs, of the legal profession, of the medical profession, etc. often for safety, often because of factors like information asymmetries or high transaction costs. Joseph Stiglitz's writings might interest you on the topic, the stuff he won a Nobel for.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#175

Post by gtallen1187 »

While a well-intentioned article, i believe this author overlooks a few points that should be pointed out.

As a consumer, i would obviously be a proponent of my current ISP giving non-discriminatory access to all sites. However, aside from voicing my opinion in the form of purchasing the services of a specific ISP, i do not believe we should have the power to do much else in dictating how these companies should run their business through the passing of laws. The author points out that the loss of net neutrality would hurt small-scale ventures - yet ignores the fact that these ISPs he wishes to regulate were once the same small start-ups that he wants to protect. Was the success of these businesses the single factor that moves them from protected status to regulatory target?

The size of these dominant ISPs means that a great deal of the population relies on their services - but our "need" for these services does not give us the right to dictate how they should run their business. If enough of us feel that none of the dominant ISPs are adequate, then our need goes unserved, and sooner or later another ISP will arrive to serve these customers.

Again - i am strongly in favor of net neutrality. But if we resort to regulatory means to get what we want, it will lead to vastly negative consequences down the road. Why start a business if this is the reward for success?

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#176

Post by baddox »

blhack wrote: post #32
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…

Because the telcos are currently enjoying a "natural monopoly". The cost of entry to become a telco is so high, that normal competitive forces do not apply. In situations like this, one role of government is to regulate these natural monopolies to protect citizens. One such regulation, for instance, is that the power company cannot shut off your power in the middle of winter in Minnesota without fulfilling some prett…

The problem is that governments forcefully prevent competition and call that "natural monopoly." Personally, I would call that the opposite of a natural monopoly. The term is used very confusingly. Wikipedia gives one definition, which I think is reasonable, which is basically a (theoretical or real) environment in which a single producer maximizes efficiency. But the term used by governments and their supporters is something completely different, where the government forcefully prevents all producers but one from operating.

It's silly to talk about telcos "enjoying" a "natural" monopoly, when the airwaves are one of the most tightly-regulated industries, and in addition to being expensive for a competitor to enter the market, it's generally illegal.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#177

Post by vardhanw »

What about all the new technologies like DPI and data analytics coupled with things like SDN and NFV which will easily technically enable any operator to have a very high level of granularity (e.g. application, user, site, device etc.) in controlling access to the network in the name of providing better QOE/S to the customer? These technologies will easily enable operators to enable complex policies which will be difficult to track and can be modified in very flexible manner to adjust to the current workarounds around any NN laws.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#178

Post by betterunix »

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.

Who decided that automobiles should have seat belts, collapsable steering columns, and the numerous other safety features that save lives today? Hint: not consumers.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#179

Post by fuckpig »

After basically 20 years of commerce dictating the needs of the net, I'd think we've already lost it.

The internet model worked when subsidized by a military and academic community supported by a massive industry.

Now that it's trying to pay for itself, it's looking a lot more like television or those free newspapers that are more ads than articles.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#180

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

The government isn't completely inept. They execute policy decisions quite well.

IMO, the US government correctly concluded that the Bell Monopoly was initially in the best interest of the nation, as it accelerated universal phone service. Later, with a lot of prodding, they reversed that policy and unleashed the telecom competition that helped bring us the last 30 years of innovation.

The problem is that the telephone companies are essentially rebuilding the old AT&T through merger, and wants to pillage the consumers of telecom services once again. They are doing this by declaring that the FCC can only regulate voice, defined as legacy TDM/POTS lines and related technology. Simultaneously, they are moving in state legislatures and congress to eliminate the requirement to provide universal POTS service.

I've worked in a large enterprise where the network teams became too politically powerful (essentially becoming a troll under the bridge instead of a service provider) and basically put the organization out of business by making it either impossible or too expensive to get anything done. Empowering phone companies without a short, tight leash would be doing the same thing to our nation.

Powerful network owners are the most dangerous people in technology.

Post reply on HN