Net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: Net neutrality

#231

Post by NoPiece » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 3:06 AM UTC

fpgeek wrote: post #222

NoPiece wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes of course, like I've said, the number is overstated, but by how much? How many people in the country live in apartments like you describe? 2%? 5%? 10%? It still doesn't make much of a dent into 97%

Re: Net neutrality

#232

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 3:08 AM UTC

snitko wrote: post #210

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…

> economically harmful usage-based billing and for that matter eliminate all the overhead of billing, marketing, collections, denying access to non-subscribers So are you saying that feeding the whole IRS is LESS expensive than having an automated billing system that could track who is subscribed and who can enter a certain road? Because if it's not more effective, then, by the same token, why don't we also fund air…

> So are you saying that feeding the whole IRS is LESS expensive than having an automated billing system that could track who is subscribed and who can enter a certain road?

The IRS is not a relevant cost because deciding not to have municipal fiber doesn't cause the IRS to go away. You have to pay for it regardless, unless your proposal is to have no taxes.

> Because if it's not more effective, then, by the same token, why don't we also fund air travel with taxation?

Because air travel has a significant unit cost. You have to pay for fuel, pilots and flight and ground crews, significantly increased maintenance of aircraft, etc. Moreover, governments have often subsidized the up-front costs of air travel, like airports and planes.

> I don't understand why do I have to subsidize someone who uses roads everyday, while I use it once a week, for example.

Because you're not subsidizing them, you're asking them to subsidize you. It doesn't require fewer road workers to pave the road in front of your house and the weather doesn't stop creating potholes just because you don't drive on it as much. You're asking for there to be a road in front of your house so that you can drive to the beach or call a cab or get on a bus or have an ambulance come to your house and you want to claim the advantages of having that available, when the availability whatsoever is the primary cost, without paying your share of the cost of that availability.

Re: Net neutrality

#233

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 3:09 AM UTC

snitko wrote: post #210

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…

> economically harmful usage-based billing and for that matter eliminate all the overhead of billing, marketing, collections, denying access to non-subscribers So are you saying that feeding the whole IRS is LESS expensive than having an automated billing system that could track who is subscribed and who can enter a certain road? Because if it's not more effective, then, by the same token, why don't we also fund air…

[deleted]

Re: Net neutrality

#234

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 3:13 AM UTC

eru wrote: post #224

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> So city dwellers have to subsidise the country folks?

No, build out requirements are actually very stupid and we should get rid of them. It's just that getting rid of them doesn't magically create broadband competition in unattractive geographies.

Re: Net neutrality

#235

Post by gnopgnip » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 3:36 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #184

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…

> I don't see how a normally libertarian-leaning group of people have embraced regulation rather than deregulation as to this issue. Presumably because there is a difference between "libertarian-leaning" (to the extent that is an accurate description of the group described) and "having a blind, kneejerk preference for deregulation". > Why do local ISP markets tend towards monopoly, even though it has been illegal sin…

>There are extensive public subsidies that have been given in the US for telecom -- and specifically broadband -- infrastructure [1]. So can we have our neutrality and universal access already?

Where do you live that you do not have universal access and net neutrality?

Re: Net neutrality

#236

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 3:39 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?

> you have a problem with private monopolies, but when a government runs some business, like building roads - it's somehow fine?

The theory of free market capitalism presupposes competitive pressure as a check on the power of market participants. A monopoly has no such competition, allowing it to be abusive and reactionary.

There is no such expectation of competition with governments. The check on the government's power comes from the political system. Checks and balances and the four boxes of liberty. It is completely possible for this to fail too, but when that happens the efficiency of telecommunications provisioning is the least of your worries.

> 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?

Of course you can. You can move to another country, or another planet. It's becoming about as practical as not having internet service.

Re: Net neutrality

#237

Post by mitchty » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 3:43 AM UTC

aninhumer wrote: post #190

mitchty wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similarly, with electricity you're not looking for SPECIFIC electrons. Actually, I am, though its more the source of those electrons. I pay more specifically to get as much power from wind/solar sources. This is an option on my power bill that I explicitly support. I would pay more for internet access that isn't comcast and isn't tied to their stupid bs. So keep that in mind.

>I pay more specifically to get as much power from wind/solar sources. And you are able to do this because there is a grid network, which allows your alternative energy provider to enter the market simply by connecting themselves to it, instead of having to run cables to your house.

Actually not really, there is only one electric provider here, they just give you the option of choosing to prefer power generated with renewables or not.

I don't think the actual electrons come from there its just a budgeting trick I expect.

Re: Net neutrality

#238

Post by cyorir » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 4:03 AM UTC

atmosx wrote: post #183

cyorir wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off by a factor of 2, if you are referring to the Presidential elections in Russia, where the communist party candidate received less than 20% of the vote. 35% roughly includes all parties except Putin's. Although I am not sure that voting against Putin (or voting for the communist party, even) is equivalent to voting to return to communism. Were you referring to a poll, or perhaps another election?

Since I can't find the link, I won't disagree on the numbers you're reporting, but seriously the only one who trusts Russian election results must be Putin (and you). ps. I'm not saying that he wouldn't have won anyway, but I'm sure that the elections in Russia are extremely well guarded .

I'll admit that I gave official election figures, as estimated by Russian election officials. They are at link [0]. Judging by official results, support for the communist party in Russia has not been anywhere near 30% since the 90's. However the Communist Party is Russia's straw man party, it is built to provide a weak counterexample to Putin and distract those who would otherwise support the main liberal opposition. This is fairly obvious whether you go by official results or western polls. I'm not sure why you think I trust the elections though; you seem to think I am arguing in favor of Putin when I am not. I simply don't think that throwing around a figure like "35% of Russians support communism" is a good idea when it is purposefully misleading and there is nothing to back it up.

[0] http://www.parties-and-elections.eu/russia.html

Re: Net neutrality

#239

Post by nknighthb » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 4:09 AM UTC

mitchty wrote: post #237

aninhumer wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I pay more specifically to get as much power from wind/solar sources. And you are able to do this because there is a grid network, which allows your alternative energy provider to enter the market simply by connecting themselves to it, instead of having to run cables to your house.

Actually not really, there is only one electric provider here, they just give you the option of choosing to prefer power generated with renewables or not. I don't think the actual electrons come from there its just a budgeting trick I expect.

Of course it's a trick. If you're anywhere other than an island that has no transmission lines running to it and you pay for electrical service, you're connected to the same grid everybody else is. Your power comes from the same place everybody else's does. You don't actually have a choice of where your "electrons" come from (they come from the wires, by the way, generating stations just make them move around).

Your "preference" is nothing more than providing an extra subsidy to generating stations that make the electrons wiggle via renewable energy sources.

Re: Net neutrality

#240

Post by sgift » Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 4:48 AM UTC

ataggart wrote: post #204

aninhumer wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In what circumstance could a 3rd party non-violent entity coerce you? Predatory pricing. Buying up necessary capital. Paying other companies to not deal with you (Suppliers, Retailers, Advertisers etc.) All completely voluntary, and these are just off the top of my head.

>Predatory pricing. Offering a lower price to consumers than your competition is not coercion against a competitor. >Buying up necessary capital. Offering a higher price to suppliers than your competition is not coercion against a competitor. >Paying other companies to not deal with you Entering into exclusive deals with other firms is not coercion against a competitor.

> Offering a lower price to consumers than your competition is not coercion against a competitor.

It is if you are offering a price lower than your costs which you offset by cash from earlier deals, which the new upstart cannot do. When the new upstart is bankrupt you push the price higher, because now there's no competition anymore. That's the reason such stunts are forbidden (at least in civilized countries).