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

We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 275 posts

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#111

Post by burntsushi »

bowlofpetunias wrote: post #78
pvnick wrote: post #20

I consider everybody here very smart. In many cases smarter than myself. Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality? Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide. Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch s…

Consumers don't decide shit. Consumers are people that buy stuff, nothing more. The people that decide are called citizens or "voters". (Also, Google is probably one of the worst examples imaginable for arguing the market should make such decisions.)

Who decided that the automobile would replace the horse and buggy for most modes of personal transportation?

Consumers.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#112

Post by shmageggy »

itistoday2 wrote: post #14

This article is over a month old. I'm interested in the current status of NN. Could someone informed fill us in on the latest?

After some googling, I've concluded that the ruling hasn't happened yet. Every other source on this topic is from around the same time, and some of them mention that the ruling is expected sometime between then and early 2014.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#113

Post by hayksaakian »

coldtea wrote: post #101
hayksaakian wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll say my only knowledge of this was anecdotal (from others) I can say first hand, that if you call your ISP and say "I'm switching to X service at $Y for Zmbps" you can get your bill reduced.

> I can say first hand, that if you call your ISP and say "I'm switching to X service at $Y for Zmbps" you can get your bill reduced. Except if you're one of those millions that live in rural areas with only one ISP. Or if the major ISPs in your area are complicit in keeping prices up and enjoy a pre-arranged share of the market each.

Right.

Rural areas and complicit ISPs suck for internet service.

My statement only makes sense if you would actually go through with the threat if they didn't reduce your bill

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#114

Post by Retric »

argumentum wrote: post #103
jjoonathan wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US Telcos = Natural Monopoly + Regulatory Capture > The cost is so high partially due to special agreements This is true, but it doesn't contradict the fact that telcos are also natural monopolies. Let's play a game: pretend that all of these special agreements have suddenly become invalid and the market has become deregulated. Assume you have (or can acquire) the technical expertise to challenge them. What's your bu…

There's a lot of ambiguity in your scenario. Do I get equal access to the existing infrastructure (presumably paid for by the existing monopoly)? Assuming this deregulation comes along with some law or judicial ruling that no local government can create such an ongoing monopoly, there would likely be created a separate industry that simply builds infrastructure at some price to the locality with no continuing agreeme…

Umm, the only way you would have access to there infrastructure is with heavy regulation so no there is no access to any of it. Suggesting otherwise is seriously ignoring the question.

PS: 1 billion in capital no regulation no access to any existing infrastructure no magic wand and the only way you can dig is to convince the local government or individuals that there is so reason to let you dig aka spend money. Which is clearly harder where there is already existing high speed internet. So what do you do you find city's without FIOS (etc) and build there at which point there yours and everyone else leaves them alone more or less. (Though if there is no natural monopoly then fighting in existing markets should be easy...)

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#115

Post by hayksaakian »

dippyskoodlez wrote: post #80
hayksaakian wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll say my only knowledge of this was anecdotal (from others) I can say first hand, that if you call your ISP and say "I'm switching to X service at $Y for Zmbps" you can get your bill reduced.

The only other option is U-verse which is more expensive for the same speed or they don't even offer the same speed. Calling the ISP and threatening them only works if you can find someone with the power to do so(and hope they don't note your account for trying it again, later..), and assumes they hold true to their word on your next bill. I was primarily refuting your "causes isps to lower their prices" because Goog…

(this is getting a little off topic)

The way customer service works (again in my experience) is that you'll go through several people before you get to someone who has the power to change your bill.

It's a needlessly involved process, but it is an option in some cases.

The original comment was regarding Google Fiber's effect on competitors. If you're in an area that can get their service, then you should be able to back up your threat.

Either google fiber is faster and cheaper than what you have now, or it's not and what you have now is better.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#117

Post by argumentum »

Retric wrote: post #114
argumentum wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of ambiguity in your scenario. Do I get equal access to the existing infrastructure (presumably paid for by the existing monopoly)? Assuming this deregulation comes along with some law or judicial ruling that no local government can create such an ongoing monopoly, there would likely be created a separate industry that simply builds infrastructure at some price to the locality with no continuing agreeme…

Umm, the only way you would have access to there infrastructure is with heavy regulation so no there is no access to any of it. Suggesting otherwise is seriously ignoring the question. PS: 1 billion in capital no regulation no access to any existing infrastructure no magic wand and the only way you can dig is to convince the local government or individuals that there is so reason to let you dig aka spend money. Which…

Clearly a local government is going to be less receptive to more digging if high speed service is in place, but it's not a "natural" monopoly if a deal with the government must be made as a prerequisite to provide services. You are also assuming that the "digger" is necessarily the service provider. In my view, local governments are basically seduced by telcos subsidizing or eliminating the up front costs of building infrastructure. In the long run, it's a bad deal.

I would say the monopoly is "natural" if and only if the local government is required to allow anyone (or no one) to dig. Or if it pays for the digging itself.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#118

Post by awinder »

jjoonathan wrote: post #84
fleitz wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telecom isn't a natural monopoly, it's a government sponsored cartel.

While you are correct that telcos currently enjoy a certain degree of regulatory capture, they are also natural monopolies/oligopolies in the sense that competitors have an astronomical barrier to entry. It's tempting but naive to think that all we need to do in order to see the market right itself is to eliminate existing regulations. What we actually need to do is to change regulations to encourage competition, bot…

"just lump their market power with media providers" is interesting considering that's Comcast, today. In a world without net neutrality, how do you stop Comcast from delivering NBC video content on the fast pipe, while degrading the performance of it's competitors?

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#119

Post by dippyskoodlez »

hayksaakian wrote: post #115
dippyskoodlez wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only other option is U-verse which is more expensive for the same speed or they don't even offer the same speed. Calling the ISP and threatening them only works if you can find someone with the power to do so(and hope they don't note your account for trying it again, later..), and assumes they hold true to their word on your next bill. I was primarily refuting your "causes isps to lower their prices" because Goog…

(this is getting a little off topic) The way customer service works (again in my experience) is that you'll go through several people before you get to someone who has the power to change your bill. It's a needlessly involved process, but it is an option in some cases. The original comment was regarding Google Fiber's effect on competitors. If you're in an area that can get their service, then you should be able to b…

I'm in the one section of KC that Google has yet to actually proliferate (probably some shady dealings with TWC and the council, but alas... no proof). TWC still offers the same terrible rates in the adjacent areas regardless of Gfiber actually being present. I'm pretty sure they just wrote off KC as an experiment and not indicitive of actual market importance. Coworkers with Gfiber have recieved no resistance from abandoning their previous ISP.

You would think the OP area of KC without Gfiber would be the one area trying to 'make nice' with people offering better service, discounts, and/or promises, but there is absolutely zero signs of 'competition' in the market.

Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality

#120

Post by jjoonathan »

argumentum wrote: post #103
jjoonathan wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US Telcos = Natural Monopoly + Regulatory Capture > The cost is so high partially due to special agreements This is true, but it doesn't contradict the fact that telcos are also natural monopolies. Let's play a game: pretend that all of these special agreements have suddenly become invalid and the market has become deregulated. Assume you have (or can acquire) the technical expertise to challenge them. What's your bu…

There's a lot of ambiguity in your scenario. Do I get equal access to the existing infrastructure (presumably paid for by the existing monopoly)? Assuming this deregulation comes along with some law or judicial ruling that no local government can create such an ongoing monopoly, there would likely be created a separate industry that simply builds infrastructure at some price to the locality with no continuing agreeme…

> Do I get equal access to the existing infrastructure (presumably paid for by the existing monopoly)?

No, the existing company retains ownership of the infrastructure they paid for and the ability to charge anyone whatever the heck they want for using it. Also, they retain all rights granted in private contracts (not involving government at the federal, state, or municipal level).

> Second, who am i? A startup [with new, cheaper tech]? Google? Another telco?

You get to pick, subject to three constraints:

* Your source of capital is rational (they'll replace you or refuse to fund you if you're acting against their monetary interests)

* Your source of capital is limited (or, rather, their trust in you is limited). Enough to cover a town, but not a city.

* Your competitive advantage isn't disruptive (for the sake of arbitrary concreteness, your up-front and continuing costs are 80% of what they are/were for the competition)

> My overarching answer is simply: I don't know, but let's get rid of the artificial constraints on the market and see what results.

That's what I was afraid of. The "game" we're playing is going to pit my knowledge of anticompetitive market practices against your ingenuity. My thesis is that the anticompetitive opportunities offered by the market will be enough to stymie innovation all on their own, unless the government takes an active role in leveling the playing field.

> In most unregulated industries, quality rises and price falls

Yes, but it works better for some industries than for others, and the industries where it has a track record of failing miserably (utilities, basic research, health care) require government intervention if we want a functional society. Adam Smith himself didn't believe that the market was suited to the task of optimizing infrastructure or military/police forces (he didn't think said list was in any way complete, either). Perverse incentives, externalities, anticompetitive opportunities, information asymmetries, and pathological nash equilibria (prisoner's dilemma) all frustrate the ability of markets to optimize society. Medicine is probably the worst rat's nest of such complications, but let's keep the focus on utilities for brevity.

> which industries do you see this not happening: 1. Finance 2. Medicine 3. Utilities 4. ?

You can't use these observations to support your point over mine because they also fit my model of reality (government must be more involved with industries that stymie the free market's optimization abilities). Also, health care in the US is ~2x as expensive as in "socialist" single-payer systems, so I find your choice of who to blame less than convincing. The ACA is the plan proposed by market reformists -- not even the Heritage Foundation thinks deregulation is the way forward on that front.

Post reply on HN