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

221–230 of 275 posts

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#221

Post by mathattack »

amarv1n wrote: post #220
declan wrote: post #172

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_3-608…

There's a lot I disagree with in Declan's comment. We disagree on what Congress gave the FCC authority to do. The 1996 Telecom Act clearly classified DSL and dial-up as something called a "telecommunications service" which was subject to a host of rules including nondiscrimination rules. On the other hand, things like Yahoo.com would be "information services," not subject to all those rules. The FCC, adhering to a de…

Thanks for following up. For what it's worth, you have a flawed view of Mortgage backed securities. By virtue of the mortgage behind it, it's a real product like a bond. It is the Credit Default Swap betting on mortgage (or corporate credit) performance that is insurance Against the mortgage backed security.

This is just nitpicking and doesn't alter your argument.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#223

Post by Dylan16807 »

Sambdala wrote: post #214
rhizome wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Braess' Paradox "states that adding extra capacity to a network when the moving entities selfishly choose their route, can in some cases reduce overall performance. This is because the Nash equilibrium of such a system is not necessarily optimal." Also, isn't the internet itself more or less a "a network [where] the moving entities selfishly choose their route"?

>Also, isn't the internet itself more or less a "a network [where] the moving entities selfishly choose their route"?

The moving entities? No, the routers make choices; it's equivalent to the road telling you which turns to take. In the example scenario the router at 'start' could evenly distribute the entities for optimal performance.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#224

Post by super_mario »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #2

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

The principle of net neutrality is directly related to freedom (or ability of a corporation to curb it, kill competition they don't like by throttling access to them etc).

How net neutrality is put in practice is entirely a different matter. And for some reason you think if it is the government doing the enforcement, that it is somehow against freedom? I completely disagree. Government not allowing another private entity to abuse me is fine with me.

In some countries net neutrality is the law already by the way.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#225

Post by super_mario »

wyager wrote: post #25
nostromo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most rights are a balancing act. In this case, the freedom of the ISP is contrary to the freedom of the subscriber, so whose freedom is supreme? I could understand opposition to net neutrality if there were competition in the ISP market. However, I have no choice but to use Comcast, so the idea that they can decide what sites I visit and how fast they are is very scary.

Bullshit. The "freedom" of the subscriber is not on the line. The subscriber can do as they wish. I can't go into a hotel and claim I have the "freedom" to use my room as a distillery just because I paid for the room. The ISP can also regulate bandwidth as they wish. They're a company, not a public organization (depending on where you live). If you don't like it, choose another ISP. If you can't choose another ISP, w…

That analogy is not at all applicable. It would be more like you rented a hotel room over the phone, but when you show up to check in, they say "Oh, you are black. Sorry, we can't give you that room, but we have a smaller one in the basement".

Net neutrality means that it does not matter what kind of car you have, you are allowed to drive on the highway. No one is going to say, oh you are not driving a domestic sedan, sorry you have to drive over there in the slow lane.

Lack of net neutrality goes directly against entrepreneurship. Any Joe Blow can buy bandwidth, build a server and start offering service online and compete against anyone and often times successfully. But without net neutrality, telco has the power to kill your business, by throttling access to it (which is esp. important in the early stages of your business). In fact your competitors can pay the telco to throttle you (why not? it may be cheaper than competing with you).

It is also extremely easy to kill access to dissenting views, blogs, news sources etc. This all rides on net neutrality.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#226

Post by super_mario »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #17
nostromo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most rights are a balancing act. In this case, the freedom of the ISP is contrary to the freedom of the subscriber, so whose freedom is supreme? I could understand opposition to net neutrality if there were competition in the ISP market. However, I have no choice but to use Comcast, so the idea that they can decide what sites I visit and how fast they are is very scary.

>In this case, the freedom of the ISP is contrary to the freedom of the subscriber, so whose freedom is supreme? No, there is no conflict. This is black and white. I know that HN doesn't want to hear it. The subscribers freedom is to leave for another provider. The provider's freedom is to charge what it wants for whatever service it wants to provide. Only one's freedom is being infringed upon here.

Provider already has that freedom. But once I buy my bandwidth for what ever price the telco is selling, net neutrality guarantees that every packet of information I send is routed all the way to its destination as equal with anybody else's (i.e. telco's are neutral and don't prefer anyone's packets).

But without net neutrality, your provider may decide they don't like your packets going to Youtube esp. since they are also selling TV cable service. So they are now allowed to slow down your traffic to Youtube.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#227

Post by jessaustin »

Iftheshoefits wrote: post #190
cheald wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most tire shops have a profit motive rather than a "provide tires" motive. It's true that tire customers aren't "captive", but I don't understand which sense of that word you mean to apply in a relevant way to health care consumers.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#228

Post by jessaustin »

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…

Are we throwing out the FCC's regulation of the spectrum? If so, then WISPs will sweep across the nation, competing to provide consumers the best wireless access at the lowest prices, on frequency bands previously wasted on broadcast, cell, and official uses. A great deal of money will be made in that sector, especially to whichever equipment maker rolls out the best first- and second-generation wideband modems.

Another good business will be replacing car radios, at least for some time.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#229

Post by jessaustin »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #196
jimbokun wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If by "natural monopoly" you are implying a monopoly arising without government intervention, I'm pretty sure you are completely wrong on that point. The reason telecommunications service is a natural monopoly is that the fixed costs are extraordinarily high and the variable costs are trivial. In consequence it is not profitable to build a competing network once one already exists, because all you accomplish is to…

Don't assume that the network must be entirely owned by one party. That is the situation right now in the cell and broadcast markets, but it is caused by regulation rather than anything "natural". It isn't the 1940s anymore; wideband radio technology exists that would allow the sharing of all spectrum rather than the single-use requirements we have. After that is adopted the first-mile connection is to a WISP, which is connected by fiber to the rest of the internet.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#230

Post by Iftheshoefits »

jessaustin wrote: post #227
Iftheshoefits wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most tire shops have a profit motive rather than a "provide tires" motive. It's true that tire customers aren't "captive", but I don't understand which sense of that word you mean to apply in a relevant way to health care consumers.

You don't understand how health care consumers are captive? Health care is literally something human beings cannot live without. The quality and cost of the care is far less important than its availability, because it's literally a matter of being healthy and surviving, or becoming or continuing to be ill, deteriorating and then dying. Healthcare consumers, in other words, don't have real choices in where and how they obtain care. This isn't the case with tires (or almost any other non-essential good or service).
Post reply on HN