The internet flourished from the early 90's through 2015 when the first Net Neutrality regulation came into place. Plenty of companies had peering disputes, the internet routed around it. Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. Keep the government out of my internet.
Tell HN: Andreessen, Thiel, Cuban, IBM, Intel Are Against Net Neutrality
21–30 of 31 posts
Re: Tell HN: Andreessen, Thiel, Cuban, IBM, Intel Are Against Net Neutrality
#22https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/ - I think this article is a good overview of why the above individuals may be against "net-neutrality". This was an eye-opening read in a filter bubble of "pro-net-neutrality" which as it turns out used fear mongering and unverified news, as the article shows.
The article seems to say both these things:
- net neutrality is a regulation on ISPs that is bad for business
- ISPs will not take advantage of repealing net neutrality
How exactly is repealing it going to help them if they won't change anything?
Re: Tell HN: Andreessen, Thiel, Cuban, IBM, Intel Are Against Net Neutrality
#23Was a bit surprised by Marc Andreessen being on that list, turns out those comments were made in 2014 when he thought Google Fiber would shake up the market and competition would solve this issue. Was also surprised to see Eric Schmidt on that page, though his argument was you should be able to discriminate voice vs video, but not Hulu vs Netflix, which makes some sense if you want to provide lower voice latency, but…
He also spoke out against the Indian government when they ruled against FB's basic internet program iirc.
Re: Tell HN: Andreessen, Thiel, Cuban, IBM, Intel Are Against Net Neutrality
#24https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/ - I think this article is a good overview of why the above individuals may be against "net-neutrality". This was an eye-opening read in a filter bubble of "pro-net-neutrality" which as it turns out used fear mongering and unverified news, as the article shows.
The article seems to say both these things: - net neutrality is a regulation on ISPs that is bad for business - ISPs will not take advantage of repealing net neutrality How exactly is repealing it going to help them if they won't change anything?
The ISPs won't do anything that would hurt their business. For example throttling, Netflix and not HBO would mean that the users who use both would prefer another service that does not throttle both.
Too much regulation means lesser competition and eventually in the long run things would deteriorate because it would be really hard to innovate.
Regulation seems like the equivalent of deciding to maintain the status quo, while if Title 2 is not imposed, there is the future possibility to make changes based on what the ISPs end up doing. The examples mentioned in the article illustrate this. I don't know why there is this idea floating around that this is the end of the internet and nothing can be reversed or changed from here-on (In fact I think that would be the case if Title 2 and associated regulations remain )
Re: Tell HN: Andreessen, Thiel, Cuban, IBM, Intel Are Against Net Neutrality
#25The internet flourished from the early 90's through 2015 when the first Net Neutrality regulation came into place. Plenty of companies had peering disputes, the internet routed around it. Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. Keep the government out of my internet.
The government is "in your internet" regardless. The question is not whether they regulate ISPs, but how they do so.
Also, the FCC has a long history of enforcing non-discrimination practices. In the past, a investigation was enough to force ISPs to treat all traffic equally. This worked until Comcast sued the FCC and won[0], forcing the FCC to formerly reclassify broadband providers as common carriers.
Wanting the internet to be the "way it was in the 90s-2010" is a pro net neutrality stance. As broadband providers were de facto common carriers as a result of DSL networks operating over phone lines.
Re: Tell HN: Andreessen, Thiel, Cuban, IBM, Intel Are Against Net Neutrality
#26I mean, net neutrality is just a shitty duct tape solution to a bigger problem. If we treated ISPs as common carriers the way they do in the UK, we wouldn't need net neutrality.
That's the entire point of ISPs being classified under Title II, which is exactly what the FCC will be voting to repeal. Right now, ISPs are common carriers in the US; soon, they will no longer be.
No, they’re not truly common carriers. Cable companies are exempt from leasing access to their networks to third parties. Telcos on the other hand have to lease such access.
Re: Tell HN: Andreessen, Thiel, Cuban, IBM, Intel Are Against Net Neutrality
#27I don't entirely understand the issue, but something tells me that it has little to do with having the best possible internet. If a company needs a lot of bandwidth don't they pay mre for it? Why would you charge me for wanting to use youtube? This is my very simplistic understanding of the current state of things.
Yes, currently the “company” pays once to the origin provider. Under the repeal, the “company” could end up paying every carrier between their gear and their customer. This despite the fact that the customer paid for “unlimited” internet already.
Imagine having a delivery component to a business. Currently, the company supposedly pays taxes to pay for the roads. Now imagine cities using the plate readers at every major intersection to levy additional tolls for every segment of the road network used by their delivery vehicles.
Now imagine cities granted cheap rights of way for the roads owned by the public to Comcast. And now Comcast is collecting a rent of their own choosing from every delivery truck that drives past a plate reader. And that’s what repealing Net Neutrality will do.
Re: Tell HN: Andreessen, Thiel, Cuban, IBM, Intel Are Against Net Neutrality
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article seems to say both these things: - net neutrality is a regulation on ISPs that is bad for business - ISPs will not take advantage of repealing net neutrality How exactly is repealing it going to help them if they won't change anything?
The ISPs won't do anything that would hurt their business. For example throttling, Netflix and not HBO would mean that the users who use both would prefer another service that does not throttle both. Too much regulation means lesser competition and eventually in the long run things would deteriorate because it would be really hard to innovate. Regulation seems like the equivalent of deciding to maintain the status qu…
while that first part is most likely true where competition is concerned, once you get outside of the bigger cities, you run into cases where you have one, maybe two, competitors in the space that will service your area.
I'm not saying pro/anti-Net Neutrality is right here, but it seems anti-Net Neutrality works best when actual competition is involved and there is a lot of area in the US where that competition doesn't exist.
Re: Tell HN: Andreessen, Thiel, Cuban, IBM, Intel Are Against Net Neutrality
#29https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/ - I think this article is a good overview of why the above individuals may be against "net-neutrality". This was an eye-opening read in a filter bubble of "pro-net-neutrality" which as it turns out used fear mongering and unverified news, as the article shows.
This was a very disappointing article for me, as Ben didn’t really do the type of forward looking analysis that he did in the past for other topics. He didn’t do the depth of analysis that he spent a year on with respect to Uber, for example.
Declaring concern about the loss of ISP neutrality is choosing to pretend that the people who control ISPs won’t make rational decisions.
If you ran Comcast, why wouldn’t you make it easier for NBC properties? Why would Comcast behave differently than MSN or AOL did in the dialup days?
The pro-net neutrality folks are motivated by self interest. But keep in mind that there are many of them. Think about why that is — you have a competitive marketplace.
The anti-net neutrality folks are all in positions to extract tolls and “sell shovels” to ISPs.
In my opinion, ISPs have consolidated and enjoy the ability to work in a low/no competition market. They should not be given the privilege of rent-seeking and inflating the cost of services that deliver value to the consumer. They are a utility. If they don’t want to be treated that way, they need to be compelled to allow competitors access to local loops.
Re: Tell HN: Andreessen, Thiel, Cuban, IBM, Intel Are Against Net Neutrality
#30https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/ - I think this article is a good overview of why the above individuals may be against "net-neutrality". This was an eye-opening read in a filter bubble of "pro-net-neutrality" which as it turns out used fear mongering and unverified news, as the article shows.
This was a very disappointing article for me, as Ben didn’t really do the type of forward looking analysis that he did in the past for other topics. He didn’t do the depth of analysis that he spent a year on with respect to Uber, for example. Declaring concern about the loss of ISP neutrality is choosing to pretend that the people who control ISPs won’t make rational decisions. If you ran Comcast, why wouldn’t you ma…
...or compelled to stop blocking municipalities from building their own loops:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-cable-...