Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Net neutrality

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 270 posts

Re: Net neutrality

#81

Post by rayiner »

rst wrote: post #71
rayiner wrote: 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.

Merely being profitable is good enough if you're happy to maintain the status quo. If you want companies to invest billions of dollars of new capital to upgrade the infrastructure, you have to make that investment not just profitable, but an attractive one relative to other opportunities.

Simple question: Silicon Valley talks a lot about the problems with the telecom industry, but why does nobody want to actually invest money building telecom infrastructure? Google is the only one doing it, and they're only doing it on the condition of not abiding by any build-out requirements. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7889163.

Re: Net neutrality

#82

Post by gress »

snitko wrote: post #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 fi…

How do ISPs gain the rights to dig up the streets in Russia?

Re: Net neutrality

#83

Post by NoPiece »

This is not the case for the “last mile”. Consumers often can only buy Internet access from a single provider; there is no choice.

This is often asserted, but not true. According to the FCC, 97% of consumers have access to at least 2 broadband providers. 67% of people have access to at least 2 providers at 10mbps.

Here is the graph from the FCC:

http://i.imgur.com/xhn1YCF.png

and the original source doc:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013...

Re: Net neutrality

#84

Post by Fgnfyhrtbtd »

bmelton wrote: post #7

I've been fairly on the fence regarding net neutrality, and this article turned me around on the issue. Previously, it was nearly impossible for me to reconcile a valid reason for regulating the telcos. It's their pipes, they should be able to route it however they want. And aside from that, we've never had net neutrality -- there's no ISP I've ever used that allows unfettered upstream access to port 80 from my home,…

The claim that the infrastructure is theirs is pretty dubious.

Sure, they may be the ones making money hand over fist on the pipes, but we US taxpayers invested $200 billion for them to build out that infrastructure. We paid for the pipes that they are profiting off of and now mismanaging.

Re: Net neutrality

#85

Post by xorcist »

twoodfin wrote: post #26
njs12345 wrote: post #19

> 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…

One idea could be to look at those who actually have gigabit residental connections at see how they did it...

I've seen several different models and most have their uses. I pay roughly $80/month for mine in a somewhat dense suburban area.

Re: Net neutrality

#86

Post by josephlord »

snitko wrote: post #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 fi…

If one of those 2-3 providers bought the others should the government intervene in the free market to stop it?

BTW do they operate their own wires to the building? If not is the owner of the wires allowed to compete in the market, raise prices or deny service?

Re: Net neutrality

#87

Post by lonnyk »

snitko wrote: post #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 fi…

>whereas the only way to fix things is to not allow governmental interference in the first place.

But we are past this point. So what is the solution now?

Re: Net neutrality

#88

Post by kuschku »

twoodfin wrote: post #26
njs12345 wrote: post #19

> 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…

German here – we have one company owning most of the lines, it gets subsidies from the government, but is in turn forced to make their lines available for everyone.

Also the government just forces ISPs to provide specific speeds in specific areas.

And we have many small ISPs which provide their own network, most of the time they are the same company that also provides water and electricity, and these ISPs compete heavily with the government-owned ISP.

Also right now ISPs have to upgrade rural areas first, so in many rural areas you can already get 200mbps to 500mbps for 50€/month, while I'm in the city and can only get it from next year on.

Overall: It is possible to create competition and still have governmental regulated fast internet.

Re: Net neutrality

#89

Post by spindritf »

snitko wrote: post #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 fi…

Do you know why I pay so little? That's because we have the free-est goddamn ISP market

Yes, but also the communist architecture. Those buildings are easier to wire and the way they're managed makes it easier to get a permit. It's the same in Poland, if you live in one of those atrocious apartment blocks[1], you'll have a pick of three, or even seven various ISPs but move to the suburbs and it's suddenly either the national telekom or some crappy wireless.

Deregulation would probably help Americans living in densely populated areas but not so much in the sprawl. And having a garden is almost a birthright. Ironically, it's the Americans in the big cities who favour regulation, and Americans outside of them who don't.

[1] http://www.michaeltotten.com/images/Communist%20Blocks%20Geo...

Re: Net neutrality

#90

Post by mxiia »

josephlord wrote: post #86
snitko wrote: post #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 fi…

If one of those 2-3 providers bought the others should the government intervene in the free market to stop it? BTW do they operate their own wires to the building? If not is the owner of the wires allowed to compete in the market, raise prices or deny service?

In a free market that would not happen. The decline in quality of the very product that the companies are offering would lead to a lower revenue stream for them.
Post reply on HN