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

Marc Andreessen talks about the pros and cons of net neutrality

gigaom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 60 posts

Re: Marc Andreessen talks about the pros and cons of net neutrality

#31

Post by glesica »

Jtsummers wrote: post #30
sowhatquestion wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is insane. By this logic, public goods don't exist. Tax-funded fire departments are great if your house catches fire, not so great if it doesn't, etc.

Indeed. I have no children, why should I pay taxes to educate other people's kids? Just because they're our future laborers working on and within our common economy to keep things going after I've left the workforce.

Because better educated children are less likely to stab you and take your cell phone while you're walking your dog.

Seriously, though, why are real estate prices higher in areas with better schools? It's not because every person who lives there or might live there has kids, it's because better public infrastructure creates better quality of life for everyone. Good public schools might not impact you directly if you don't have children, but they do attract better neighbors, create more cultural and social opportunities (even for the childless), and generally produce better quality of life for the communities they serve.

I really, really wish all the libertarians would get off HN and move to Somalia or some other place with no functioning government where they could finally be happy. I'm sure it would work out well for them, because good governance clearly has no positive externalities.

Re: Marc Andreessen talks about the pros and cons of net neutrality

#32

Post by dotrob »

crazy1van wrote: post #18
jackgavigan wrote: post #4

I had a bit of back-and-forth with Marc on this topic and I think he's underestimating the difficulty of regulating a non-neutral 'net such that competition (and, therefore, innovation) isn't stifled. I can't help thinking that if, 20 years ago, Microsoft had struck a deal with the major ISPs to prioritise packets being downloaded to Internet Explorer over those being downloaded to Netscape browsers, Marc would have…

> I can't help thinking that if, 20 years ago, Microsoft had struck a deal with the major ISPs to prioritise packets being downloaded to Internet Explorer over those being downloaded to Netscape browsers, Marc would have had a very different take on net neutraliy. Interesting point. However, imagine if regulators had dictated the web browser as a "common carrier" and defined exactly what it can and can't do, we might…

Twenty years ago, those major ISPs were using the telephone system (via dial-up), which was designated a common carrier. If ISPs had to convince everyone to buy into a new cable or dish transmission system because the tel-cos could block their traffic over the phone lines or charge inflated fees for it, where would we be now?

Re: Marc Andreessen talks about the pros and cons of net neutrality

#33

Post by alberth »

wavefunction wrote: post #19
alberth wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>" It's why major roads aren't owned by private companies" In the US, many major roads are owned by private companies like Cintra [1] to give one example, and they charge tolls [2] on those roads. It's become common practice in many US states that any new highway construction must have a toll on it and then the state sells the road to a private company. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cintra [2] http://en.wikipedia…

>>It's become common practice in many US states I think it's unfortunately down to the incessant anti-tax rhetoric in the US. It's a lot easier to get a private company to finance a toll-road with a concession agreement than it is to pass bond measures or increase taxes.

Isn't the tax that's added into the price of a gallon of gas suppose to pay for roads?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax

Re: Marc Andreessen talks about the pros and cons of net neutrality

#34

Post by sowhatquestion »

alberth wrote: post #15
john_b wrote: post #6

The major providers like to pretend that they're in a wonderful competitive market where, if only they were allowed to discriminate on traffic more, there would be more competition, prices would be lowered, and investment in infrastructure would grow due to the competition. This is a nice rosy view of things, but it's just not accurate. They're de facto infrastructure builders, and for their efforts they want a monop…

>>" It's why major roads aren't owned by private companies" In the US, many major roads are owned by private companies like Cintra [1] to give one example, and they charge tolls [2] on those roads. It's become common practice in many US states that any new highway construction must have a toll on it and then the state sells the road to a private company. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cintra [2] http://en.wikipedia…

Sure, maybe private companies have a small supporting role in piggybacking on one of the biggest (and highest ROI) government infrastructure projects ever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

The real problem here is that many advocates of net neutrality frame their support of neutrality strictly in terms of enabling free-market innovation. Perhaps because they're afraid to lose the support of the many libertarians who still walk among us, net neutrality supporters are afraid to give a fully fleshed-out narrative of what should happen: the government either makes a massive direct investment in increasing information bandwidth (as it has done with transportation bandwidth), or it assimilates the telcos and makes them do so. Finally, the current wave of market-based innovation can continue, supported (as markets always are) by a robust public infrastructure. There is a properly dialectical relationship here: you can't have one of these moments without the other, even though they are contradictory.

Is this plan perfect? No, but it sounds a million times more preferable than Comcast and Verizon picking which startups live or die.

Re: Marc Andreessen talks about the pros and cons of net neutrality

#35

Post by roin »

calroc wrote: post #16

There are no "cons" to net neutrality. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best and duplicitous at worst. The idea that we won't get enough bandwidth in the future unless the telecos et. el. are allowed to play gatekeeper makes no sense to me.

CON: The more money I think I can make by owning network infrastructure, the more I will invest to build it now.

That's not to say that net neutrality is bad or wrong on balance, but no cons at all?

Re: Marc Andreessen talks about the pros and cons of net neutrality

#36

Post by twoodfin »

lhc- wrote: post #25
twoodfin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. You can imagine pretty expansive definitions, and whatever definition you come up with can create potentially undesirable incentives. I don't know whether Comcast is using IP to deliver their video-on-demand services to your cable box, but let's assume they are. That IP bandwidth is above and beyond whatever you're paying for as a "broadband" connection, but that's just accounting: It's all packets in the end…

Im not sure how the second case incentivizes them to build out their networks either. They have barely done that for the last decade or so (consider how expensive and slow internet access in the US is compared to much of the first world), so I'm not sure why they would start now that they have even more control.

"Barely done that for the last decade or so"? I don't think you remember what broadband connectivity options were available in your typical American suburb in 2004 or 1994. As rayiner pointer out in a thread a day or so ago, telecom providers are some of the largest capital spenders in the nation:

http://news.investors.com/technology/091913-671712-institute...

Re: Marc Andreessen talks about the pros and cons of net neutrality

#37

Post by rayiner »

alberth wrote: post #33
wavefunction wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>It's become common practice in many US states I think it's unfortunately down to the incessant anti-tax rhetoric in the US. It's a lot easier to get a private company to finance a toll-road with a concession agreement than it is to pass bond measures or increase taxes.

Isn't the tax that's added into the price of a gallon of gas suppose to pay for roads? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax

That just covers the maintenance costs (and only about half of those), not capital construction costs.

Re: Marc Andreessen talks about the pros and cons of net neutrality

#38

Post by rayiner »

sowhatquestion wrote: post #29
crazy1van wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow this logic. Toll roads allow the people who want to use a road to pay for it. Tax-funded roads take taxes from all the district's citizens to pay for roads that only some will use. Great if you use that road. Not so great if you don't.

This is insane. By this logic, public goods don't exist. Tax-funded fire departments are great if your house catches fire, not so great if it doesn't, etc.

It's more a recognition that roads aren't automatically public goods. Roads in general tend to benefit everyone, sure. But something like say the Georgia 400, which just exists to funnel suburban commuters into Atlanta? That's better off as a toll road, paid for by the people who use it.

Re: Marc Andreessen talks about the pros and cons of net neutrality

#39

Post by Jtsummers »

glesica wrote: post #31
Jtsummers wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I have no children, why should I pay taxes to educate other people's kids? Just because they're our future laborers working on and within our common economy to keep things going after I've left the workforce.

Because better educated children are less likely to stab you and take your cell phone while you're walking your dog. Seriously, though, why are real estate prices higher in areas with better schools? It's not because every person who lives there or might live there has kids, it's because better public infrastructure creates better quality of life for everyone . Good public schools might not impact you directly if you…

I left the /s implied.

Re: Marc Andreessen talks about the pros and cons of net neutrality

#40

Post by lordCarbonFiber »

glesica wrote: post #31
Jtsummers wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I have no children, why should I pay taxes to educate other people's kids? Just because they're our future laborers working on and within our common economy to keep things going after I've left the workforce.

Because better educated children are less likely to stab you and take your cell phone while you're walking your dog. Seriously, though, why are real estate prices higher in areas with better schools? It's not because every person who lives there or might live there has kids, it's because better public infrastructure creates better quality of life for everyone . Good public schools might not impact you directly if you…

The parent comment was being sarcastic. He was using the obvious example of schools to illustrate what a ridiculous idea the notion that public roads are somehow not a public good if one person happens not to use them.
Post reply on HN