Live data from Hacker News

Net neutrality

blog.samaltman.com

71–80 of 270 posts

Re: Net neutrality

#71
post #67

I don't see how a normally libertarian-leaning group of people have embraced regulation rather than deregulation as to this issue. Why do local ISP markets tend towards monopoly, even though it has been illegal since 1992 to grant local cable monopolies? Two words: universal access. It's the same principle that led municipalities to grant taxicab monopolies, of the kind that stifle companies like Uber today. The idea…

Not necessarily -- if a net-neutral infrastructure as a whole is profitable to operate, then it can be constructed and operated by profit-making businesses without subsidies. But in that case, you need regulation if you want to keep net neutrality -- which is what YC is asking the FCC for.

Re: Net neutrality

#72

> I would love to see a world where the companies that own last-mile infrastructure are required to lease the lines to any ISP the end consumer wants; this would create a competitive market and mostly eliminate the problem. [2] This is pretty much how it works in the UK; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openreach It does seem to work pretty well.. there are a wide variety of operators and prices are very low. If I ha…

If I had to pick out common criticisms, Openreach can take their time if you have to deal with them directly (getting a line installed in a new office or apartment can take a few weeks), and there seems to be very limited innovation in the last mile - even in London it's hard to get more than 20mbps, and many people in rural areas are stuck with a crappy DSL line at 2mbps or so. That's exactly what I'd expect. Make i…

[deleted]

Re: Net neutrality

#73

> I would love to see a world where the companies that own last-mile infrastructure are required to lease the lines to any ISP the end consumer wants; this would create a competitive market and mostly eliminate the problem. [2] This is pretty much how it works in the UK; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openreach It does seem to work pretty well.. there are a wide variety of operators and prices are very low. If I ha…

There was a show on PBS [1] that looked at internet access in several countries, and one of the segments covered the UK. There were two amusing facts they mentioned about line sharing in the UK.

1. BT was very much against it, claiming they would lose a lot of money. They now admit it was great for them.

2. AT&T and Verizon were strongly in favor of this. Ask them about doing it in the US, and they say it would be terrible for consumers.

The reporter for that PBS show did an updated print version of this story for Engadget [2].

[1] http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/video-high-fibe...

[2] http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband...

Re: Net neutrality

#74
I wonder. I wonder. I live in Russia and I have 2-3 very good providers on the block constantly competing with each other and offering better connection and prices. They would show up on time and connect you very fast. They fix things quickly (in my government maintained house, the basement once became filled with water after the rain, and the wires were damaged. Even though it wasn't their fault, the ISP came and fixed it the same day). I pay about $120 a year for my internet. It's faster than anything I saw when in the US. And that's in Russia, that authoritarian backward country. Do you know why I pay so little? That's because we have the free-est goddamn ISP market, government hasn't been interfering with it (it's starting to, though). Everything I see government touches is of low quality, whereas everything that's good in my country is private enterprise.

And yet, you claim free market fails. Dear american internet users. The only reason you have what you have - shitty speeds and near monopolies - is BECAUSE you have government sticking its nose where it shouldn't (I'd say, it shouldn't stick its nose anywhere, but that's another story). Comcast is the second largest lobbyist in Washington. And still you want to fix the problem by introducing more of the same, that is more regulation and more government, whereas the only way to fix things is to not allow governmental interference in the first place. You can't blame evil Comcast. Why? Because if not them, someone else would lobby and win. If you can lobby, you have to or you're gone.

Re: Net neutrality

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electricity and water systems, while definitely needing upkeep, don't need to prepare for a doubling of usage every few years. Edit Plus, the electric company definitely does some kind of demand shaping: shutting off AC compressors on a rolling, as-needed basis. In water emergencies the water company will declare which days I can water the lawn or wash my car. "Utility" isn't synonymous with "totally dumb pipe."

The electricity and water systems don't benefit from their component costs being cut in half every few years. This isn't some situation where people just unreasonably expect better service for no reason, the technology gets better and cheaper. Furthermore, Internet bandwidth is not a commodity like electricity or water. There's no supply to diminish. What the telecoms want to do is more like if suburban streets were…

Internet bandwidth is not a commodity like electricity or water

I agree

Re: Net neutrality

#76
post #68
post #67

I don't see how a normally libertarian-leaning group of people have embraced regulation rather than deregulation as to this issue. Why do local ISP markets tend towards monopoly, even though it has been illegal since 1992 to grant local cable monopolies? Two words: universal access. It's the same principle that led municipalities to grant taxicab monopolies, of the kind that stifle companies like Uber today. The idea…

I don't see how internet is any less a natural monopoly than electricity. Picture a residential street with 100 completely separate fiber optic networks vs 10 vs 1, now which seems more efficient. It's not like everyone connects to a different Hacker News.

Because with electricity, everyone gets the same power. You're tied to the same grid; your provider just meters your usage, bills you, then pays wholesale prices for the power you used. But the system as a whole only measures inputs (from power generators) and outputs (consumers). It works for something like electric power where a volt is a volt and a kilowatt is a kilowatt.

With Internet access, you're looking for SPECIFIC packets. Those packets have to be routed in a certain way and delivered over a shared, multicast last mile infrastructure. If you want the ability to choose your ISP, then while it may be the same Hacker News, the route the packets take to get there might be very different.

Re: Net neutrality

#77
The petroleum industry seems to know how to balance fairness with profit making. ISPs need to learn some lessons from them instead of making decisions which hurt the platform itself in the long run. If all ISPs become like this, people will be very willing to move to an alternative that becomes available. This will just make them more vulnerable to 'disruption'.

Re: Net neutrality

#78
post #66
post #60

I agree, there's no real competition for the "last mile." (If there were real competition, ISPs would be trampling over each other to deliver the best Netflix experience and bragging about it in their advertising campaigns!) Requiring the incumbent mono/duopolistic last-mile ISPs to lease their lines may improve the situation, but I'm not as sure as Sam Altman that it would bring about real competition, because of th…

One option would be to prevent any company from operating a last mile AND selling it to retail customers. Honestly, what I find most striking is how bad cable boxes are simply because there is no completion.

Recently, due to their (Comcast's) own stupidity, I ended up having a couple of visits from Comcast techs trying to fix an issue.

Every single one was wowed by my TiVo. Just seeing how fast it was to respond (which has never been a TiVo strong suit) and how reasonable the interface was amazed them.

That's pathetic.

Re: Net neutrality

#79
The author of this article -- like most others who write on the topic -- fails to understand that the lack of competition is not due to a "market failure". Rather, it is due to government intervention that allows only a few -- or a single -- provider in an area.

Re: Net neutrality

#80

> I would love to see a world where the companies that own last-mile infrastructure are required to lease the lines to any ISP the end consumer wants; this would create a competitive market and mostly eliminate the problem. [2] This is pretty much how it works in the UK; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openreach It does seem to work pretty well.. there are a wide variety of operators and prices are very low. If I ha…

Didn't 1996 telecom deregulation mandate sharing of last mile copper, creating short-lived (~5 years) DSL CLECs funded by about $20B of public IPOs? Various tactics were employed by incumbent telcos to slow down the CLECs, while nominally complying with the requirement to share the last mile.

Yes, that was rolled back in 2001 as one of the first Bush Administration moves against the internet - I have no doubt this protectionist move was done in exchange for these big telcos to support the "terrorist surveillance" that's now turned into constant surveillance on Americans.
Post reply on HN