F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility • Hacker News Board

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#351

Post by techsupporter » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 3:07 AM UTC

MCRed wrote: post #301

rayiner wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every cable company in every city I've lived in the USA has been a locally granted monopoly with the city extracting massive amounts of money from the monthly cable bill in "Franchise" fees. In no city is the cable company actually a "locally granted monopoly." Every franchise agreement I've seen points out that it's non-exclusive. Technologists have a fundamental misconception that leads to a lot of cognitive diss…

The cable franchise agreements are exclusive. That's why you don't see two companies offering cable service. If they weren't you other companies would compete. Regarding wireless, you don't seem to understand how the industry is structured. While it's true there are many brand names on the shelf in walmart, there are only 3 actual providers in a given metro region. Virgin, for instance, uses Sprints network, which is…

> The cable franchise agreements are exclusive. That's why you don't see two companies offering cable service.

You and others keep writing that when it is demonstrably false. Witnesseth:

Wide Open West - A cable overbuilder that serves Detroit, Columbus, Cleveland, and portions of Chicago right alongside the "incumbent" cable company.

Wave Broadband - Its coverage area overlaps with Comcast in some (high net worth) areas of Seattle.

RCN - An overbuilder--the first one, actually--that serves New York City, Boston, Washington D.C., and Philadelphia.

You don't see many overbuilders because building a physical plant network is VERY EXPENSIVE. Verizon's former CEO lost his job to a board that saw how expensive the FiOS buildout was--even though it will return its costs 10 times through not having to maintain the old fiber--and how it dragged on quarterly earnings reports. Instead of spending all of this money, companies retreat to where they don't have to compete so they can soak as much cash as possible out of their existing assets.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#352

Post by ancap » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 3:09 AM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #317

wsloth514 wrote: post #307

Is anyone else here afraid of this little word called, "regulate"? Maybe I am being naive.

One should be afraid of the word unregulated, as in monopoly.

"unregulated" does not mean monopoly. In fact, in all cases, monopolies are only possible through government force (ie. regulation).

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#353

Post by MCRed » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 3:16 AM UTC

mariodiana wrote: post #339

tomphoolery wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Politicians must think the tech community is a frustrating beast to work with." Smart people are less predictable than those they have been marketing to previously. The biggest downside to this decision comes from the following line: "But Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C. chairman, will advocate a light-touch approach to Title II, they say, shunning the more intrusive aspects of utility-style regulation, like meddling in pric…

> To me, this is proof they are still in bed with the ISPs The established players are quite often in favor of regulation, since it stifles up-and-comers who might out-compete them.

This is really the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. Liberals think that somehow the regulation will never be tainted by economic forces. Libertarians realize it is, and that the best regulation is the itchy feet of a free market where you can just choose to not do business with companies whose policies you don't like.

By the time the internet is destroyed by regulation, those advocating for its complete nationalization will have forgotten that their ideological brothers are the ones who advocated its destruction.

You have seen this happen recently with obamacare-- the government regulated the healthcare industry into the ground, and now nationalized health insurance as a "solution", which is already not working.

Thus we have the old cliche: If you're not a liberal when you're young you have no heart, if you're not a conservative when older, you have no brain.

Have a heart, protect rights, libertarians agree with you, but learn from the history. IT has never worked.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#354

Post by paulhauggis » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 3:17 AM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #317

wsloth514 wrote: post #307

Is anyone else here afraid of this little word called, "regulate"? Maybe I am being naive.

One should be afraid of the word unregulated, as in monopoly.

There is no monopoly over Internet. In my area, I have multiple choices for high-speed Internet.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#355

Post by MCRed » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 3:18 AM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #316

jkn wrote: post #221

Pretty impressed with the negativity here. Just a year ago, I remember all the stories on HN with people lamenting that the FCC doesn't have the guts to regulate broadband as a utility under title II [1,2,3] (admittedly with a minority speaking against title II, most prominently rayiner, whose comments I generally look forward to for an interesting contrarian view). Y Combinator even published an open letter[4]. Quot…

Who would want to be negative about it except monopolists' shills who are paid to do it?

People who recognize that the internet has been a free market for most of its existence, and has consequently resulted in a massive economic boom.

Without which, by the way, there would not be the startup culture we have now. (prior to the internet it was all semiconductors.)

YC people here are advocating literally killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Do I sound like a shill for comcast? If so, you're not really listening.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#356

Post by joelhaus » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 3:26 AM UTC

alexqgb wrote: post #225

mbreese wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internet access could always have been taxed... I'm not sure what in non-Title II classification would have stopped that. Congress can slap a tax on just about anything they'd like. In fact, if you were to believe Comcast, there are already regulatory fees and taxes associated with my internet access (non-TV).

Spectrum auctions (the costs of which are passed on to the winning telco's customers) are not only a tax, they're a tax that gets marked-up by a private company before being collected.

Very skillful framing of spectrum auctions as a tax. Would love to see this view pushed more widely, as society would reap some serious benefits... primarily large swathes of unlicensed spectrum.

In a light-touch regulatory framework, this could lead to innovation leaps. If anyone is familiar with the economics of Coase (generally credited with devising the spectrum auction scheme), would love to read some good counter-points.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#357

Post by paulhauggis » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 3:31 AM UTC

How is complete government regulation equivalent to a "free and open Internet"?

Everyone seems to think that this will just be exactly what we have now, but with more freedom and options. I don't think this will be the case.

It will open the door for any future governments to start regulating things like freedom of speech.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#358

Post by shmerl » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 3:33 AM UTC

ancap wrote: post #352

shmerl wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One should be afraid of the word unregulated, as in monopoly.

"unregulated" does not mean monopoly. In fact, in all cases, monopolies are only possible through government force (ie. regulation).

> "unregulated" does not mean monopoly.

No, but when unregulated happens to be a monopoly, you have a major major problem. Exactly what happens in many areas with big ISPs.

It's not like there is no antitrust law, but no one seems to care about it and monopolists simply get away with ignoring it left and right.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#359

Post by shmerl » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 3:35 AM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #354

shmerl wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One should be afraid of the word unregulated, as in monopoly.

There is no monopoly over Internet. In my area, I have multiple choices for high-speed Internet.

It depends on the area. In many places it's exactly a monopoly. And even if there is "choice" there is collusion between those options (for example to keep prices evenly high and not offering better service) which virtually makes it a monopoly anyway from the user's perspective.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#360

Post by shmerl » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 3:37 AM UTC

MCRed wrote: post #355

shmerl wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would want to be negative about it except monopolists' shills who are paid to do it?

People who recognize that the internet has been a free market for most of its existence, and has consequently resulted in a massive economic boom. Without which, by the way, there would not be the startup culture we have now. (prior to the internet it was all semiconductors.) YC people here are advocating literally killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Do I sound like a shill for comcast? If so, you're not real…

> People who recognize that the internet has been a free market for most of its existence?

Really? I didn't notice any freedom in places where the only choice are some colluded monopolistic ISPs which in addition write state laws which ban competition. It's not called a free market. It's the opposite of it. All that talk about the magic "invisible hand of the market" is a pile of trash when monopoly is in place and turns that hand into a suffocating iron grip.