AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government • Hacker News Board

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#261

Post by Hasz » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 4:32 PM UTC

dingo_bat wrote: post #241

Hasz wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s very possible — the full source to an older version is on github. That aside, it might be a poor example and explanation on my part. Other than technical competency, there is nothing inherently stopping everyone from having a shitty one man version of reddit, independent of everyone else’s shitty one man reddit. For the New Yorker example, everyone must work together — if I cut my neighbors line putting mine in,…

> It’s very possible — the full source to an older version is on github. What makes reddit "reddit" is the millions of users, not the code (which is open and very basic). > there is nothing inherently stopping everyone from having a shitty one man version of reddit, independent of everyone else’s shitty one man reddit. There is: usage. My one-person reddit is useless if you and 100 million other do not use it activel…

Dunno if you're still interested, but here's my clarifications.

What makes reddit great is the millions of users. Millions of user are instrumental to its success and popularity. However, reddit can still exist if no one used it. It wouldn't be very successful or popular, but it can still exist. I fully agree a one person reddit is useless, but useless != impossible to exist.

In the network case, you make a good point. However, I think there is still a distinction to be made between an entity that lives on the internet vs an entity that supplies the internet, which I think goes back to the original barrier to entry argument.

If you decided reddit was awful, you could conceivably run your own with fairly little cost. On the other hand, digging up your street, putting up poles, buying switches etc is far more capital intensive, and that's just a network for two people! Even if both groups are shitty, one is clearly prohibitively more costly than the other. This distinction warrants a difference in treatment, where the ISP is subject to NN but reddit is not.

To put it another way, it's totally reasonable to create a parallel reddit, so much so that several exist. It may be popular, but it's reasonably possible. Creating parallel internet infrastructure is downright inconceivable. No one in their right mind would think laying fiber optic cable across the pacific for a parallel network is a workable idea because local_ISP is awful.

A monopoly isn't just defined by being popular and having a large market share. It needs to have several other features, one of the ones I think is especially important is price control. Google/Apple/reddit do not have price control, the ISP does.

Wikipedia has an excellent article on monopolies.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#262

Post by wandernotlost » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 4:37 PM UTC

CuriousCosmic wrote: post #177

wandernotlost wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're cool if I dig up your street very few months? I want to offer service to your neighbor. The government doesn't create local communication monopolies. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either lying or hasn't thought very hard about the subject.

yes in fact i would be ok. I would prefer slight inconvenience every few months and actually having a decently competitive ISP market. side note: given constant need to dig up the streets to lay cable, wouldn't the local government opt to install a large conduit.

I didn't say I wanted to offer you service, just your neighbor. He's more profitable. You don't get to benefit personally from all the interruption, but in order to have anything approaching a free/competitive market, you'd have to tolerate it.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#263

Post by jerkstate » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 5:23 PM UTC

jachee wrote: post #251

jerkstate wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we could argue back and forth about what is fair and what is standard. But what did the contract, agreed to by both parties, say? Was Level3 in the wrong to sell Netflix a product that they could not deliver without violating their prior contract with Comcast? I agree it sucks to be a consumer and get shafted by these shitty deals, but let's at least be honest about how we got here and what the powers that be ar…

>what the powers that be are actually gunning for I'm genuinely curious: What do you believe the powers that be are gunning for?

I've said in other places in the thread that I believe that the big content companies (the ones who don't also own telcos) are trying to gain negotiating power over telcos/end-user ISPs in order to pay less for high-bandwidth use cases like video streaming. I don't believe for a nanosecond that this has anything to do with free speech, given the censorship track record from some of the biggest net neutrality supporters. I also don't buy the argument that end user ISPs will be able to charge extra for access to different content providers (although I think consumers will continue to gladly accept cheaper/zero rated content from some providers, in violation of net neutrality) - simply because while last mile competition isn't great, it does exist (especially in wireless), and there are enough regional ISPs to really put a dent in the big guys should they engage in a business practice like that.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#264

Post by now_l93 » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 6:49 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #69

now_l93 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulatory decisions are supposed to be made with public input. We're all aware that the agencies often ignore input. That doesn't mean it's ok to make fake input. The FCC will use these fake comments to create the illusion that the public has given them a mandate. That's unacceptable.

That sounds like a roundabout way of agreeing that it doesn't harm any real people, it just shouldn't be done and should be prosecuted

Deceiving the public with a fake narrative of popular support harms society.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#265

Post by riazrizvi » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 7:14 PM UTC

chopin wrote: post #257

riazrizvi wrote: post #65

Mr Schneiderman, How can you enforce Net Neutrality today? I'm an ATT & Comcast user. It's clear to me that these companies are already throttling my service based on which websites I visit, which I understand is illegal. I have deduced this by switching to a VPN whenever a website does not immediately come online. In over a hundred trials in the last two years I have confirmed that over 80% of the time a website wil…

Nitpick: You just described a way to enforce it. For privacy reasons I would go that route anyways.

Yes I can do it. But privacy and net neutrality needs to be in place for the general public who are not so tech savvy. Otherwise data gatherers will use information to destroy competition and sustain monopolies. If I make a new site that competes with some service that ATT sells, perhaps they knock on the door offering some crummy buy out deal. If I don’t accept they can just choke off the service. More likely though, they sell a choke off service to big spenders. Let’s say it’s the 90s. A scrappy website called Backrub, created by two Stanford grads, introduces a new internet search that is vastly superior to a Microsoft owned MSN Search. Microsoft pays ATT to throttle Backrub users. Fast forward back to 2017 and the world is forced to use Bing because Google doesn’t exist. I’m sorry if I created a horrific mental image for you but we need to make net neutrality the default for Joe Public otherwise this capitalist enterprise system will run itself into the ground.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#266

Post by joshamania » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 7:27 PM UTC

___ab___ wrote: post #248

joshamania wrote: post #244

What's the possibility of using the RICO statutes against these companies? I'm thinking of Comcast in particular. Recently they made a "mistake" by adding services to my cable bill that I had not ordered. They very quickly erased the charges when I complained, but if their excuse for why they were there in the first place was valid, they should have fought to keep the money if they were in the right. I believe this w…

https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...

I think the link would be more useful if it weren't done in an explain-like-i'm-five manner. Some of it does seem to apply, especially if you look at the things on the list:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961

section 1343 (relating to wire fraud)

section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents)

...and I could go on but meh. I believe that the link started out with "complicated conspiracy" law to describe what RICO is...isn't that exactly what I was accusing Comcast of?

I understand that RICO is an extremely difficult case to make, and it probably should be so, so that the law isn't used flippantly. But I also think we need much more powerful tools to control these corrupt monopolies that control large parts of this country's infrastructure, especially as they seem hell bent on controlling even more of it. IF Verizon is found to have controlled a massive identity theft racket to bombard the FCC with fake comments, it seems to me that RICO is the exact tool to use.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#267

Post by charleslmunger » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 8:18 PM UTC

carry_bit wrote: post #250

charleslmunger wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In #2 the service is delivered over IP and the same last mile wires as other internet traffic. It's not "the internet", but it competes directly with the internet for last mile bandwidth, just like a Netflix or YouTube cache installed on the ISP's network. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/11/comca...

It directly competes for last mile bandwidth regardless--the frequencies on the coax can either be used for internet or a dedicated video service but not both. Would you really require cable ISPs provide you an internet bandwidth of X and video bandwidth of Y instead of internet bandwidth of X+Y?

There's shades of grey here - anything you lay in a fixed diameter conduit is competing for bandwidth in the sense that you could pull another wire.

Consider an alternate history, where TV was invented after the internet. ISPs propose to offer TV service (exempt from data caps of course) at the expense of last mile bandwidth, which is otherwise subject to caps. I think that would be recognized as a net neutrality violation.

It feels unreasonable because we know the cost of providing television service scales with the number of subscribers, not the usage per subscriber. Of course, that's also true for internet service outside peak hours - a fixed monthly cap does not match the unit costs of providing internet at all.

I think pragmatic regulation would exempt existing cases like this. We wouldn't permit a new case like it in the future, though.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#268

Post by thomastjeffery » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 8:52 PM UTC

fvdessen wrote: post #247

thomastjeffery wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Net Neutrality is like preventing the Post Office from limiting the amount of packages a business can deliver, or limiting the priority of that business's deliveries unless that business pays the Post Office a premium. The problem with that behavior is that there are some very large, wealthy businesses like Amazon who need to deliver a high volume of packages on time, so those businesses would be willing to pay a ver…

There is absolutely no difference between what you and I said. The Post Office does limit the priority of a business delivery unless that business pays a premium (express delivery). The reason this doesn't goes terribly is that there is business competition between the Post Office and FedEx, DHL, etc. The problem with the internet is not the lack of neutrality, it's the lack of competition between ISP. And you assume…

Don't forget that this is a metaphor.

You are right that the problem is a lack of competition.

The biggest problem with internet companies right now is that there are services like Facebook that people use so prolifically that they are very difficult to compete with. If ISPs began prioritizing Facebook, as they have tried to do before, it will be even more difficult to compete.

The other problem is that ISPs aren't the only ones fighting competition between internet services. There is a long history with media corporations using copyright to fight competition. Most innovative music streaming services have been considered illegal (turntable.fm, Grooveshark, What.CD), unless their business can pay rightsholders (Spotify, ). and adding features to existing services like Netflix involves breaking DRM, which is also illegal.

All of these issues are related in some way, especially since many of the biggest media corporations are the same businesses as the biggest ISPs. These corporations have accrued so much capital that no one can compete with them or their lobbying.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#269

Post by thomastjeffery » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 9:05 PM UTC

tripzilch wrote: post #258

thomastjeffery wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 6 ISPs that control the majority of the market for the entire US . Most Americans have only one ISP to choose from. When a company like Comcast or Verizon owns, or owns the rights to the existing infrastructure, they can refuse to sell or lease that infrastructure to other businesses, thereby stifling competition. That is the current state of affairs. For a competing business to be successful, it needs infr…

> 6 large companies who do not want competition I don't think we are disagreeing, but if we're being pedantic and frame the discussion to axiomatically state that, by definition, 1) business firms value profit over people we should also pose that 2) large companies do not want competition continuing, 3, .., 98) the human condition, etc finally, 99a) arseholes 99b) and why we can't have nice things because, defending…

What I wanted to make clear is that points 1 and 2 compound each other.

When there is healthy competition, businesses will consider fulfilling their customers' needs as the best way to increase profits.

When there is not healthy competition, businesses will be able to increase profits using methods that go against their customers' needs, because their customers have no alternative.

That is why we can't have monopolies.

But we do have monopolies, so we need a workaround: regulation.

Re: AMA: NY AG Schneiderman on net neutrality and protecting our voice in government

#270

Post by thomastjeffery » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 9:06 PM UTC

betterunix2 wrote: post #254

thomastjeffery wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 6 ISPs that control the majority of the market for the entire US . Most Americans have only one ISP to choose from. When a company like Comcast or Verizon owns, or owns the rights to the existing infrastructure, they can refuse to sell or lease that infrastructure to other businesses, thereby stifling competition. That is the current state of affairs. For a competing business to be successful, it needs infr…

FYI the United States had line-sharing requirements for DSL service until 2005; that could always be reinstated if the FCC actually wanted to rely on a competitive market for ISP service.

> for DSL

DSL can barely compete anymore.

The only reason that it can is that there is no competition.