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

241–250 of 275 posts

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#241

Post by Spooky23 »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #204
Spooky23 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong (because I'm not very familiar with this issue), but I gather that the tightly regulated part - power transmission and distribution - suffers greatly from decaying infrastructures due to lack of investment and maintainance. It seems to be at the brink of collapse in some places. I'm not against government regulation of essential infrastructures, but we should be aware of the fact that it's ver…

Agreed. Regulatory regimes aren't a magic wand -- they are tools that need to be wielded appropriately.

I think that any capital intensive infrastructure becomes more difficult to manage effectively as it ages. Even relatively rich and well maintained infrastructure like the US Interstate system has severe design flaws (35-year lifespan bridges that are 40 years old) that make life more complicated.

Is that a regulatory problem? I don't think so.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#243

Post by jarjoura »

ampersandy wrote: post #128
jarjoura wrote: post #59

IMHO, this isn't about Netflix, YouTube, or even Amazon having to pay for higher tiered access to customers. They have the deep pockets and smart lawyers to construct contracts that work out for them in the end. So I see that as the same grumpy story as California and New York forcing Amazon to collect sales tax. BUT, because this does force deals to be crafted behind closed doors, they will turn out looking a lot li…

but at the loss of any other social network upstart that wants in on it Who do you think is footing the bill for those Facebook-only plans? Covering the costs of all internet use sounds like an unsustainable business strategy. Are 'social network upstarts' losing out on users in the USA because people don't want (or can't afford) to pay for a data plan? How is this any different?

Well, lower income families in the US are far richer than equivalent families in emerging markets. Either that, or they at LEAST have access to credit to make access possible, just a burden. So that's not really a fair comparison.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#244

Post by jarjoura »

Houshalter wrote: post #216
bandushrew wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why do that instead of just making it so that really poor people got internet access, and then allowing them to decide how they use it? as much as possible, we should avoid making decisions people can make for themselves.

If they want normal internet access they can pay for it. The point is to allow for a cheaper option if people want or need it.

Well right now people can buy super cheap $9 a month DSL service that provides very basic speeds. The difference right now is that the user of that service can decide where and how they use that bandwidth (assuming it's all legal).

So if all they need is IRC, Email, and Github, then that's perfect for them. Why would I let them (ISPs) decide how to bill me for the places I want to go on the internet?

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#245

Post by smsm42 »

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…

Well, because obviously if something is wrong in the world, giving a bunch of professional liars selected by people 10% of which disagree on whether it exists and how to fix it and 90% of which do not understand the problem and vote on the looks of the guy and the fact he wears the colors of the team their granddad rooted for - giving such setup maximum power seems like a brilliant idea. If that doesn't fix the problem, what else would?

It's like somebody being wrong on the internet, only you can feel you did something about it. Like empowered somebody who doesn't know how to fix it and has abysmal track record in fixing hundreds of other things, to do whatever it takes to fix it. That can't ever go wrong, can it?

And we can be sure we can totally trust them with this power and they won't think about usurping this and taking it way beyond original purpose and trying to control everything everywhere. It's not like we're living through the wave of revelations showing how far the government can go subverting privacy, undermining security and expanding its powers in very short time. It's not like we have an agency that has an official logo of globe-encompassing octopus on top of the slogan "Nothing is beyond our reach". Calling for more control of the internet for those people would be indeed a bit myopic. But that's not what is going on here, right?

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#246

Post by alexeisadeski3 »

dkuntz2 wrote: post #197
alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think YouTube & Facebook & iTunes would pony up?

I don't think they'd always be given the choice to. Especially something like Netflix, which directly competes with cable companies and their online offerings.

You're talking about a population which elected both Bush II and Obama.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#247

Post by argumentum »

johndevor wrote: post #210
argumentum wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe that governments ought to put consumer interests first, even though presently they have a track record of doing the exact opposite. For me, this is the part I'd emphasize, and probably where we could create a great deal of consensus. Whether or not we agree that the government should be interfering for the benefit of the consumer, we definitely agree that it shouldn't be interfering for the benefit of big…

> Whether or not we agree that the government should be interfering for the benefit of the consumer, we definitely agree that it shouldn't be interfering for the benefit of big business. But government is largely bought and paid for by special interests. Given that, it seems there's very little point in asking what the gov't should do. What it will do, is quite obvious: it will serve the interests of the highest bidd…

I agree, that's the real world result, but we can't win that argument easily. Instead we can point out each instance of it happening and hopefully the more pragmatic liberals will come around eventually.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#248

Post by dkuntz2 »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #246
dkuntz2 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they'd always be given the choice to. Especially something like Netflix, which directly competes with cable companies and their online offerings.

You're talking about a population which elected both Bush II and Obama.

The population didn't elect Bush II the first time [1]. The electoral college did, making it the fourth time a candidate winning the popular vote didn't win the electorate vote.

Would the alternatives of McCain or Romney have resulted in the current NSA scandal not happening? No, it's silly to think that way, especially because it was happening (on a slightly smaller scale) when Bush was president. How it's being handled now might not be the best way to handle it, but would it have been handled differently with McCain or Romney in the Oval Office?

And making a grand statement about how a vastly large group of people doing something you perceive as not being in their best interest doesn't mean they didn't believe it to be in their best interest.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#249

Post by smsm42 »

cam_l wrote: post #131
jjoonathan wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What's your business plan? Thanks, this is is a point I do not see expressed enough. Regulatory capture just one expression of a 'free market'. When you are a non-moral entity, free to do business however you want, you will cheat, you will find ways within any system to lock others out of your market, you will screw the customer for every last cent, you will break the law if you can get away with it - or at least t…

>>> The opposite of regulatory capture is not no regulation, it is public education and engagement and power.

And unicorns. Most of all the unicorns, being the most real part of the deal. At least until people realize that regulatory capture is not some excess of the regulation, it is a direct and inevitable consequence of it. There's no people that can understand the industry enough to regulate it but the people of the industry. There's no people that are motivated enough and having enough concentrated resources but the people of the industry. Thinking that you can beat a team of industry experts knowing everything about their industry and already having majority of regulatory body composed of their former coworkers by chanting "power to the people" and "public education" is beyond naive. Of course, if you're lucky, you can align your interest with a competing group and suppress opposing group's interests for a time. But that would not give you any power - it would just redistribute the power between the two groups. As long as you agree that the power should belong to the regulatory bodies, you would have them to be controlled by major industry players, partially or completely. You can say feel-good things like "public education" all day long, but you'd have to wake up and face the reality one day - and the reality is that regulatory capture is an inevitable consequence of powerful regulation in a big industry.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#250

Post by fm8892 »

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…

> 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 business plan?

My business plan is to be Google: Install duplicate infrastructure for 80% of what the incumbent paid (per your other post), using my massive cash reserves, and charge $0 for equivalent or better service. Revenue comes from my massive ad network (which my competitors don't have), so I can sustainably run the business like this for as long as necessary to force the incumbent to fold. I now have the local monopoly, which I can use as I see fit. I might (for example) give priority to packets originating from hosts who are also customers of my ad network.

This creates a virtuous cycle for me--advertizes will only want to spend money with me, so I can upgrade my infrastructure more rapidly that the former incumbent ever could. That brings me more internet-users, which makes my ad network more valuable. Since I have a monopoly, I can also rent-seek with respect to internet access fees (though I might keep it at $0 to encourage end-uses to continue clicking on ads).

I will then repeat this process in other cities until I have a nation-wide monopoly. Despite being in blatant violation of anti-trust laws, I will continue to do this by bribing^H contributing to the election campaigns of friendly politicians.

Of course, this is cheating a little (because my business plan replaces one natural monopoly with another)--but not a lot, because you asked for my business plan to break into the current natural monopoly, not how one could sustainably obtain a competitive market. The answer to the latter question is obvious: You can't.

Post reply on HN