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

181–190 of 275 posts

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#181

Post by Spooky23 »

nickff wrote: post #169
jjoonathan wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Competition is the "active ingredient" in the free market, and "freedom" from regulation does not always suffice to guarantee competition. Utilities are the textbook example.

The utility market used to be competitive, then municipalities began "licensing" them, which eventually led to the current state of affairs.[1] Even lighthouses, which have large externalities, can be built and operated without government intervention, as they did for a very long time.[2] [1] http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ElectricityandItsRegulati... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lighthouse_in_Economics

The utility market moved towards a regulated model in the very early days of electric and gas transmission. There were lots of really good reasons for this around safety, universal service and public good. Most states today have a model where delivery is tightly regulated, but electricity generation is a competitive marketplace.

At the end of the day the government exists to serve the public interest.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#182

Post by Daniel_Newby »

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…

Telecom is not a natural monopoly. My little flyover city has three wired telcos, and who knows how many wireless ones. If San Francisco does not have hundreds of telcos, it is because somebody rigged the game.

Another disproof of natural monopolization is the operating costs. If a monopoly could profitably run handmade cables through the air to an office full of operators, then modern buried cables and automated switches can support several competitors in every large market. Again, lack of competition is actually proof that the game is rigged.

Anybody who supports network "neutrality" without trust-busting has AT&T's dick in their mouth.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#183

Post by ghshephard »

baddox wrote: post #176
blhack wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The "natural monopoly" of telcos and other utilities comes from the limited amount of physical space available to run water pipes, electrical lines, and data lines. Not to mention the limited opportunity to install those services without causing disruption (typically when the land is first prepared)

It's not the case that everyone can simply spend the same amount of money as the first utility, and replicate it's services in order to compete.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#184

Post by staticelf »

The author seems to think the internet is all about America. We in Europe doesn't give a shit whatever your court decides.

The best case scenario is if the US was disconnected from the rest of the worlds connectivity. Almost all evils that has generated hate from the public has been american corporations.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#185

Post by wmf »

vardhanw wrote: post #177

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 dif…

Those technologies are expensive and I would hope that it's cheaper for ISPs to add capacity than to use that stuff. Unfortunately this thinking does not apply if ISPs see neutrality as a strategic threat.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#186

Post by mrgriscom »

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…

To me it just seems self-evident that monopoly telcos should be required to treat all traffic equally. That's what it means to be a common carrier. Imagine if you called your favorite pizza place to order a pizza and the phone said 'we'll be connecting you in 30 seconds, or press 1 to be connected to a Verizon Preferred Partner Pizza Parlor immediately...'. It seem ridiculous for the phone company to be allowed to do that, so why would we ever tolerate it for an ISP?

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#187

Post by wmf »

wycx wrote: post #122
pnut wrote: post #9

The toothpaste is out of the tube already, people know what freedom online tastes like. Bad news for old money - the Internet has an appetite for rentier blood. This will not be tolerated long term.

The internet has an appetite for replace existing rent seeking with more scalable rent seeking.

I just got an idea for a startup: it's like Uber for bandwidth.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#188

Post by baddox »

ghshephard wrote: post #183
baddox wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The "natural monopoly" of telcos and other utilities comes from the limited amount of physical space available to run water pipes, electrical lines, and data lines. Not to mention the limited opportunity to install those services without causing disruption (typically when the land is first prepared) It's not the case that everyone can simply spend the same amount of money as the first utility, and replicate it's serv…

You're talking about the valid theoretical concept in economics, not the government-enforced monopolies that we actually see in practice.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#189

Post by jimbokun »

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…

If by "natural monopoly" you are implying a monopoly arising without government intervention, I'm pretty sure you are completely wrong on that point.

Telecommunication companies need permission to rip up streets and run wires, or run wires on poles, or exclusive rights over parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, or put satellites into the right geosynchronous orbits to broadcast signals to consumers.

(I'm curious to know if I'm wrong about any of these. For example, did Dish/DirecTV require permission to put their satellites in place? Do they even own the satellites.)

All of these things require specific government enforcement. So every telecommunications company is pretty much created through government regulation.

So the idea that backing the wishes of telecom executives is somehow pro-free-market is completely farcical. Free market activity has had almost nothing to do with the current U.S. telecommunications industry. This is just yet another industry asking for a windfall through government acting in their favor, similar in spirit to the financial industry bail out.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#190

Post by Iftheshoefits »

cheald wrote: post #46
raverbashing wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's the 'invisible hand' working for healthcare again? I'm very against government regulation, but something it's necessary.

That's a rather poor example - healthcare is an exceptionally heavily-regulated industry. There's an argument to be made that many of the ills in the industry are a result of over-regulation.

That an argument can be made doesn't imply it's a good one, or that anybody should pay it any heed.

Most of the ills in the health industry stem from the fact that providers--insurers and direct providers alike--have a profit motive rather than a "provide healthcare" motive, because their market is entirely captive and literally without any (real) choice.

Post reply on HN