Facebook and Google Are Not Public Utilities • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook and Google Are Not Public Utilities

#31

Post by xiaq » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 3:55 PM UTC

spaced-out wrote: post #3

It's weird that there's so much talk about Google and Facebook being public utilities and no talk about ISPs, which obviously are public utilities and treat their customers like crap. I think Big Tech needs to shake up their lobbying division.

I guess you are from the US?

Local loop unbundling [1] is a regulatory method to "utility-ize" ISPs by forcing the infrastructure owner (usually big telco companies) to allow competitors to use the infrastructure.

Here in UK LLU seems to be working reasonably well, as least in terms of value for money. My Internet bill is 25 pounds (~35 dollars) per month and from chatting with my colleagues in the US, I'm under the impression that this is quite cheap by US standards. It happens to be the same as my limitless 4G data subscription. You can get cheaper rates if you have a long-term subscription; I used to pay 15 pounds per month but now pay more after switching to a monthly subscription.

In the US LLU regulations also exist but according to some discussions I found [2] its implementation was sabotaged by the big carriers and the FCC did not manage to enforce it and gave up.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling

[2] https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-Local-loop-unbundling-...

Re: Facebook and Google Are Not Public Utilities

#32

Post by kemayo » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

throw149102 wrote: post #19

As an aside, I'm really beginning to dislike titles for articles that have that dismissive tone of "This is my fact and I'm going to tell it to you". I know the reason they have to do this is that having a reasonable title won't get any clicks, but perhaps that's a sign I should just be disregarding places that are only looking for clicks in the first place. I think I'm going to mostly focus on smaller creators, sing…

> Actually, looking at the article itself, I'm surprised how little there is here. It comes in just under 900 characters, it fits in 4 tweets.

You're wrong about this, by an order of magnitude. It's 8,640 characters. I can only guess that maybe you have some malfunction of an adblocker that cut yours off after the first paragraph?

Re: Facebook and Google Are Not Public Utilities

#33

Post by thinkling » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

TL;DR: Aside from clarifying what the terms "public utility" and "common carrier" mean, the article's main argument is that Google's customers are the advertisers, not the visitors to its search engine, and that there's no reason to expect them to treat all advertisers equally.

Re: Facebook and Google Are Not Public Utilities

#34

Post by amyjess » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

xiaq wrote: post #31

spaced-out wrote: post #3

It's weird that there's so much talk about Google and Facebook being public utilities and no talk about ISPs, which obviously are public utilities and treat their customers like crap. I think Big Tech needs to shake up their lobbying division.

I guess you are from the US? Local loop unbundling [1] is a regulatory method to "utility-ize" ISPs by forcing the infrastructure owner (usually big telco companies) to allow competitors to use the infrastructure. Here in UK LLU seems to be working reasonably well, as least in terms of value for money. My Internet bill is 25 pounds (~35 dollars) per month and from chatting with my colleagues in the US, I'm under the…

The only services I've seen competitors provide via LLU are ADSL, back when ADSL was still a viable competitor to cable.

But I've never seen any competitors offer service over a cable, VDSL, or other fiber network, and those are the only kinds of wired Internet service that are really viable anymore.

Re: Facebook and Google Are Not Public Utilities

#35

Post by kube-system » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 4:03 PM UTC

j_walter wrote: post #10

weare138 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[ bittorrent enters the chat ]

Only for specific DCMA violations...no different than taking down videos for copyright violations. No one is arguing these types of "censorship" because it's theft...it's when opinions are taken down for being "wrong".

There are ISPs that prohibit legal bittorrent traffic

Re: Facebook and Google Are Not Public Utilities

#36

Post by dcow » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 4:07 PM UTC

To me there’s way more nuance than simply the question “is big tech a common carrier?”

I don't really care if Google discriminates in its search results to provide a better user experience. If I don’t like that UX I can use another search engine.

But what about Twitter? Twitter is not just discriminating in tweet search results, they deplatform Tweet authors and organizations (e.g. Unity 2020) on a whim and with no recourse. The analog would be if Google just deleted your website if your page rank fell too low.

IMO Google looks like an information broker and Twitter/Facebook look like common carriers of tweets/posts.

If your argument is that we can’t call them either then it seems like it’s on you to suggest a framework that does correctly classify content platforms.

Re: Facebook and Google Are Not Public Utilities

#37

Post by r00fus » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 4:17 PM UTC

xiaq wrote: post #31

spaced-out wrote: post #3

It's weird that there's so much talk about Google and Facebook being public utilities and no talk about ISPs, which obviously are public utilities and treat their customers like crap. I think Big Tech needs to shake up their lobbying division.

I guess you are from the US? Local loop unbundling [1] is a regulatory method to "utility-ize" ISPs by forcing the infrastructure owner (usually big telco companies) to allow competitors to use the infrastructure. Here in UK LLU seems to be working reasonably well, as least in terms of value for money. My Internet bill is 25 pounds (~35 dollars) per month and from chatting with my colleagues in the US, I'm under the…

That was the reality of the situation in the US in the year 2000, then the ISP lobby and the new incoming GOP administration for George W Bush removed that rule and kicked the customers to the curb again.

Re: Facebook and Google Are Not Public Utilities

#38

Post by kevinventullo » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 4:18 PM UTC

j_walter wrote: post #29

Apocryphon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like it's easier for local governments to set up their own public broadband services than their own competing big tech companies. And there's been plenty coverage of the fight for public broadband and the pushback from monopolistic ISPs.

The problem is local governments are not competent enough to do so...and even if they figure out how to do so it's at a large multiplier of the cost of any major ISP. https://municipalbroadbandpdx.org/home There is a link to getting local broadband in Portland...it's a total mess and waste of money.

It depends. I’ve only heard good things from my parents about the municipal offerings in my hometown in rural-ish Iowa. Cheaper, faster, better customer service than the existing private ISP I had growing up.

Re: Facebook and Google Are Not Public Utilities

#39

Post by xiaq » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 4:19 PM UTC

amyjess wrote: post #34

xiaq wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you are from the US? Local loop unbundling [1] is a regulatory method to "utility-ize" ISPs by forcing the infrastructure owner (usually big telco companies) to allow competitors to use the infrastructure. Here in UK LLU seems to be working reasonably well, as least in terms of value for money. My Internet bill is 25 pounds (~35 dollars) per month and from chatting with my colleagues in the US, I'm under the…

The only services I've seen competitors provide via LLU are ADSL, back when ADSL was still a viable competitor to cable. But I've never seen any competitors offer service over a cable, VDSL, or other fiber network, and those are the only kinds of wired Internet service that are really viable anymore.

IIUC, cables are not subject to LLU in the UK (Virgin Media being the only cable ISP) but fibres are. Competition from fibre probably keeps cable Internet price reasonable enough.

Re: Facebook and Google Are Not Public Utilities

#40

Post by dahfizz » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 4:24 PM UTC

pb7 wrote: post #22

unethical_ban wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Among those who understand internetworking, there has been debate about ISPs as utilities for a long time. * ISPs present a cost and performance problem for most Americans, whereas social media giants present fundamental issues of society and speech. It's easier to see there is a problem, while also being harder to figure out.

Net neutrality doesn't exist so ISPs can decide to arbitrarily block access to social media giants, or any other site, altogether. That is the bigger problem. Anyone going after Google and Facebook but not ISPs has an agenda.

> ISPs can decide to arbitrarily block access to social media giants, or any other site, altogether. That is the bigger problem.

How is that the _bigger_ problem? This is entirely theoretical. ISPs have not done anything like that yet because it doesn't make any sense for them to.

Big tech, on the other hand, have shown that they are more than willing and able to destroy any platform they don't like. Big Tech has as much or more power over the internet than ISPs, and are much more likely to abuse it.