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

111–120 of 270 posts

Re: Net neutrality

#111

Post by matthewmacleod »

snitko wrote: post #94
josephlord wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No. If one of them grew and bought others and provided excellent service no one could outcompete, what's the point to interfere? I'm not against monopolies per se. I'm against monopolies that are created using government power. However, if this new monopolist started providing shitty service, competitors would emerge immediately. Granted the government wouldn't prevent them from emerging by demanding to purchase expe…

That's naïve - it would be exceptionally difficult for a new ISP to emerge countrywide even in the a sense of regulation. It's very capital-intensive!

Re: Net neutrality

#113

Post by snitko »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #111
snitko wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If one of them grew and bought others and provided excellent service no one could outcompete, what's the point to interfere? I'm not against monopolies per se. I'm against monopolies that are created using government power. However, if this new monopolist started providing shitty service, competitors would emerge immediately. Granted the government wouldn't prevent them from emerging by demanding to purchase expe…

That's naïve - it would be exceptionally difficult for a new ISP to emerge countrywide even in the a sense of regulation. It's very capital-intensive!

That's very well. Some industries mature and new companies don't enter those industries because they are taken. For example, not many people attempt to go into the soft drinks market. Why? Because there's Coca-Cola and Pepsi. How idiotic would that seem if government started saying things like "we need soft drinks neutrality so every McDonalds is now obligated to sell you both Coca Cola or Pepsi and that new competitor who just entered the market". That wouldn't solve any real problem, as you can imagine. If there is a problem, let consumers decide directly, not government.

Re: Net neutrality

#114

Post by staunch »

What if everyone physically helped? I bet 100 million adults could dig up their streets and lay fiber in a weekend if we made it a point of national pride. Okay, a few power lines would come down and water pipes would burst. If you planned it well and let cities organize volunteers I think you could just maybe pull it off.

Re: Net neutrality

#115

Post by harpastum »

snitko wrote: post #98
lonnyk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Good question. The solution is not go full retard, it seems, but to stop doing wrong things. Whatever you do, you don't ever introduce new regulation. Don't introduce more opportunities for government bureaucrats to feed from. Because if you do, it's gonna lead to worse and more expensive things for the consumer.

I understand your point, and I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion on language. However, saying that introducing more governmental regulation is going "full retard" (even if the idea behind it is actually true) is reductive and detracts from your point.

This is not an issue of political correctness. Saying "not go full shit-head" falls into the same category. Please treat your opposition with respect, even if you disagree with them.

Re: Net neutrality

#116

Post by snitko »

vajorie wrote: post #110
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…

> 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. Your argument, even though it reads like liberal laissez-faire stuff, actually is: the government is being controlled by corporations. So, your solution of "stop regulation" is offtopic. Come up with something relevant to yo…

I actually think it's both ways. Both corporations and government control consumers. That's what it's about. The solution should be such that it is easier to administer it. You can fight numerous evil corporations to no luck. Or you could focus on one entity without which all those evil things wouldn't be possible.

Re: Net neutrality

#117

Post by setrofim_ »

Retric wrote: post #66
cs702 wrote: 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.

> One option would be to prevent any company from operating a last mile AND selling it to retail customers.

How would that help? As long as there is still the one company owning the one last mile line. Whether it's consumers buying it or intermediaries leasing it in order to re-sell, there is still no competiton. I suppose, an itermediary may have more pull then a consumer, but in the end it's the operator that the leverage as there are no alternatives in that area.

Re: Net neutrality

#118

Post by njs12345 »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #108
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…

"there seems to be very limited innovation in the last mile - even in London it's hard to get more than 20mbps" That's just not true - vast swathes of London now have access to the VDSL-based Infinity service which is up to 76Mb down; there are quite a few FTTP exchanges too.

Well, when I looked (in E1, close to Central London) it wasn't available yet, and only about half the people in my office can get it. Hopefully things have changed in the meantime :)

Re: Net neutrality

#119

Post by snitko »

harpastum wrote: post #115
snitko wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question. The solution is not go full retard, it seems, but to stop doing wrong things. Whatever you do, you don't ever introduce new regulation. Don't introduce more opportunities for government bureaucrats to feed from. Because if you do, it's gonna lead to worse and more expensive things for the consumer.

I understand your point, and I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion on language. However, saying that introducing more governmental regulation is going "full retard" (even if the idea behind it is actually true) is reductive and detracts from your point. This is not an issue of political correctness. Saying "not go full shit-head" falls into the same category. Please treat your opposition with respect,…

Oh, ok, sorry. I never realized "retard" is super offensive in that way. It didn't sound like a very strong word to me, so I apologize.

Re: Net neutrality

#120

Post by wavefunction »

spindritf wrote: post #96
lonnyk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

"If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"?

Isn't that the point of digging?
Post reply on HN