Net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: Net neutrality

#221

Post by geekam » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 1:16 AM UTC

icehawk219 wrote: post #174

geekam wrote: post #154

Honest question from a non-citizen about this line "But he is fighting against very powerful lobbyists..." I do not understand lobbying? Is it a euphemism about bribing a bunch of politicians? If yes, then why isn't it illegal? If no, then can someone please throw some light on it. I was not born here in the US so I am always confused by what "powerful lobbyists" can do to deter someone like the chairman of FCC who c…

Lobbying in its purest form is supposed to be a way for people to have a voice in their government. Anyone in this country can ring up, or write, or email, their representative and push for an issue they feel strongly about. Likewise they can also make campaign contributions to the representatives, or candidates, they like and want to see in office. And the two can very easily be tied together: "I'm donating to your…

I see. So, the only way to have fair "for the people, by the people, of the people" elections is to have people fund the elections?

Thanks for a nice explanation.

Re: Net neutrality

#222

Post by fpgeek » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 1:18 AM UTC

NoPiece wrote: post #197

tehwebguy wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I don't think they are overestimating, the graph just doesn't say what you said it does. It does not count the residences that have access to 2+ options, it only counts the number of houses that lie within census tracts that have 2+ broadband options available anywhere in said tract. This means that even a residence with literally 0 options would be counted as a "2+ broadband options available" house if there were…

You are right, what the report says is that 97% of people live in census tract where there are two broadband providers. What percent have access to the two is unknown, but absent any evidence to the contrary, and given the relatively small size of census tracts, it is reasonable to assume a majority have access to the providers in their tract. I'm open minded here, show me some data that shows a large group of people…

Apartment buildings often make exclusive deals with cable companies for a variety of reasons. And even when they don't, it can be very hard to deploy new infrastructure anyway.

Re: Net neutrality

#223

Post by eru » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 1:25 AM UTC

mtrimpe wrote: post #170

ef4 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not obvious whether it's really a bad idea to have several independent fiber networks in the same geographic area. Choice is good. And it would also necessarily imply more total capacity, which is also good. So deciding the "right" number of network operators in one place is subjective, and comes down to what consumers are willing to pay for. Or at least it would, if competition weren't illegal. There's nothing…

In the Netherlands we force the physical network part of the infrastructure to be separate from the services that run on top of it. It can be implemented fairly easily by separating a company into two and forbidding them from giving special deals to their former counterpart. That seems to have a very good effect on competition in practice...

They do the same with the fibre network in Singapore, too.

I think the British rail network might work on similar lines? The German electricity companies emphatically do not work on those segregated lines. There are some politically pushes every once in a while---Germany has some biggest price differentials between domestic and wholesale electricity prices (and some of the highest domestic prices), but the regulatory capture seems to be too much to overcome.

Re: Net neutrality

#224

Post by eru » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 1:27 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #191

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…

> 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 true that universal access is what causes networks in major cities to lack competition. But getting rid of it wouldn't solve the problem anywhere else, because there are still millions of people who live in areas that couldn't economically justify more than on…

> But getting rid of it wouldn't solve the problem anywhere else, because there are still millions of people who live in areas that couldn't economically justify more than one ISP.

So city dwellers have to subsidise the country folks?

Re: Net neutrality

#225

Post by snitko » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 1:28 AM UTC

shard972 wrote: post #219

Vik1ng wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But does the government really stay out of the way? Maybe my view is biased, but I always had the impression that in Russia a lot was about party and influential people connections.

That actually seems like a harder senario to rationalise, that a corrupt oligarchy is providing more competition and better services than a free market. While Russia does have it's political elites and corruption (Like pretty much every other country) they aren't idiots, they have been on the other side of free markets and there are few there that know it's value.

People say US or EU are not corrupt or are less corrupt. That is a misrepresentation. They are equally corrupt in the higher levels (though they managed to convince people they are not). What happened there is consolidation. Thus if you want get things done, you have to spend more money lobbying at higher levels, because the lower level is scared of consequences. So a consolidation of corruption happened.

In the US when you want to win a court case, you spend money hiring top lawyers. In Russia you buy a judge. Results are the same. Who's to say one way is better than the other? You still need money to win, so how is it fair to the poor? In fact, I think it's incredibly irresponsible and actually immoral to tell the poor the system is fair while it's not.

The question is, which system restricts the free market more. That is very debatable. In some areas Russia's incredibly backwards simply because corruption expenses are higher than the equivalent expenses would be for complying with the regulation in the US. In other areas, it's great. City transportation is great, for instance. We have many private jitney services and they are not expensive, so people use them all the time. Same goes for cab services: you can literally raise hand and get any car at any time of day for much cheaper than in the US. You don't need licences to drive people around (at least nobody enforces that).

So, I'd say, in some areas the US definitely sucks. The quality of life you have in the US is most definitely not thanks to your government, but thanks to your private enterprises.

Re: Net neutrality

#226

Post by eru » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 1:33 AM UTC

spindritf wrote: post #89

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 n…

> Ironically, it's the Americans in the big cities who favour regulation, and Americans outside of them who don't.

Not quite, they just favour different regulation.

> Deregulation would probably help Americans living in densely populated areas but not so much in the sprawl.

Perhaps that would convince some people to de-sprawl?

Re: Net neutrality

#227

Post by aninhumer » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 1:33 AM UTC

snitko wrote: post #220

makomk wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You produce 1 million socks a month and another company only 10 thousand. You obviously can't just drop prices on 10 thousands socks of yours, because that would still allow your competitor to stay in business Except that with internet access, you can do exactly that. Any new competitor is going to have to choose to wire up a particular set of neighbourhoods with a particular 10 thousand customers in, and they're g…

Very good example of a difficult problem. The answer to it is not government. I always challenge myself and others with this: if you had a problem for which government seems like a very reasonable answer, can you design a better solution? And indeed, you can. In this example you have to realize that what government is selling to consumers is the service of preventing eventual rise in prices after the competition is w…

>Then this contract can be enforced by whichever private court and protection agency I hired

And how they will enforce this contract? If it involves the threat of violence, how is it better than government? If it doesn't, how does it enforce your contract against the threat of violence?

>It's logically impossible, because for a politician the economic incentives are always in the wrong place.

Can you elaborate on this? I would say democracy is the only structure we know of which has shown itself able to limit concentration of power.

Re: Net neutrality

#228

Post by fpgeek » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 1:52 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #158

jbooth wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, most of the things you're taking out of the monthly were already factored into the fronted cost in the linked article. Second off, if Verizon does that shitty of a job of cost control compared to foreign government bureaucracies, maybe we should consider nationalizing them. But back to my actual point -- It costs money to deliver the service? Charge more for the service if you can't deliver it profitably.…

> First off, most of the things you're taking out of the monthly were already factored into the fronted cost in the linked article. No they're not. They cover, e.g., marketing to get you to hook up in the first place, but not, e.g., marketing to keep you from switching to Comcast a year later. They account for the cost of hookup, but not, e.g., ongoing maintenance. As to your other point, charging up front is not the…

> "Market transparency" is a red herring. You pay $10 per month to Netflix, because that's the value of that content to you. You don't care if some of that money goes to Verizon any more than you care that some of it goes to the studios that own the content.

If he's on $OTHER_ISP, I'm sure he's not thrilled that some of that money is going to Comcast and Verizon.

Re: Net neutrality

#229

Post by aninhumer » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 2:00 AM UTC

snitko wrote: post #211

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some goods and services are dominated by up-front costs. That makes usage-based billing economically harmful by discouraging usage of a use-it-or-lose-it resource that has already been paid for. It also makes competition extremely inefficient because each competitor has to duplicate the high up-front cost of e.g. building a last mile network. The result when left to private enterprise is generally a monopoly that cha…

Another thing: you have a problem with private monopolies, but when a government runs some business, like building roads - it's somehow fine? With a private enterprise, even if it is a monopoly, I still have a choice: I can stop paying and not use the service. Can I stop paying to the government?

When a democratic government makes decisions, everyone gets an equal share in that choice. If the road gets built, it's because most people agree it will benefit them.

When private enterprise makes decisions, those with more money get more choice. If a road gets built, it's because those with money agree it will benefit them.

If a democracy starts letting the rich have more say, then it needs to be strengthened to resist them, not weakened so they can do as they please.

Re: Net neutrality

#230

Post by d357r0y3r » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 2:41 AM UTC

aninhumer wrote: post #229

snitko wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another thing: you have a problem with private monopolies, but when a government runs some business, like building roads - it's somehow fine? With a private enterprise, even if it is a monopoly, I still have a choice: I can stop paying and not use the service. Can I stop paying to the government?

When a democratic government makes decisions, everyone gets an equal share in that choice. If the road gets built, it's because most people agree it will benefit them. When private enterprise makes decisions, those with more money get more choice. If a road gets built, it's because those with money agree it will benefit them. If a democracy starts letting the rich have more say, then it needs to be strengthened to re…

When a democratic government makes decisions, everyone gets an equal share in that choice.

Isn't this an assumption? Perhaps if the system were such that every issue were up to a nation-wide popular vote, the statement would be true...not that such a system is a good idea.

Some votes are worth infinitely more than others. That is to say, many votes are worth nothing. If you vote for the opposition party in a district that is 75% supportive of the incumbent party, your vote doesn't matter. It will (hopefully) be counted, but no one will take your opinion into account.

The other assumption is that majority rule is something worth working towards. Everyone wants government power to work for them. Problem is, it's a power that can't really be controlled. You might get your way this election cycle, but that same power could be used against you when the uneducated reactionaries rise up next time around.