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

F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 452 posts

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#371

Post by bequanna »

[deleted] wrote: post #366
bequanna wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cloudflare is opt-in. In my scenario, the ISP purposely degrades the service unless you pay more. This isn't hypothetical as it has been proven they did/do to Netflix traffic. Cloudflare isn't going to DDoS every site that doesn't sign up for their service. The value of doing surgery successfully via the internet is high. Are you really that naive that you don't think ISPs will attempt to capture as much of that valu…

[deleted]

> You are subscribing to ad hominem attacks, without knowledge of how these services get built, paid for & capitalized upon.

Please. Your company provides a commodity. You are a utility and soon will be regulated as such. There is nothing special about what you do vs. ISPx ISPy or ISPz.

If our current model worked, we (the US) wouldn't have third-world quality internet at first world prices.

I am a pretty conservative guy, but in this case: enough is enough. You guys got greedy, and people are pissed.

> I work for an ISP

Change is coming. Prepare accordingly.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#372

Post by [deleted] »

bequanna wrote: post #371
[deleted] wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

> You are subscribing to ad hominem attacks, without knowledge of how these services get built, paid for & capitalized upon. Please. Your company provides a commodity. You are a utility and soon will be regulated as such. There is nothing special about what you do vs. ISPx ISPy or ISPz. If our current model worked, we (the US) wouldn't have third-world quality internet at first world prices. I am a pretty conservativ…

[deleted]

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#373

Post by [deleted] »

bequanna wrote: post #371
[deleted] wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

> You are subscribing to ad hominem attacks, without knowledge of how these services get built, paid for & capitalized upon. Please. Your company provides a commodity. You are a utility and soon will be regulated as such. There is nothing special about what you do vs. ISPx ISPy or ISPz. If our current model worked, we (the US) wouldn't have third-world quality internet at first world prices. I am a pretty conservativ…

[deleted]

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#374

Post by Omniusaspirer »

cranklin wrote: post #48
HelloMcFly wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not 100% happy with my utility companies, but I'm 500% more satisfied with them than any cable company I've ever had.

I can dump my cable company if they piss me off. I can't do that with my utility companies

Sure you can- nothing stops you from installing your own power generation/water purification (assuming you own your home and don't have a Nazi township/HOA).

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#375

Post by __david__ »

greggyb wrote: post #315
lbenes wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, I don't buy your argument that the proposal is bad. Your hypothetical situation where net neutrality could harm startups is so contrived it almost sounds like you are trolling. The odds of a future ISP competing by brokering a deal with the big content providers to undercut the established ISPs is never going to happen. The government failed to protect most of us from living under a broadband monopoly.…

The government did indeed fail to protect most of us from living under a broadband monopoly. In most cases by municipal governments granting exclusive franchises to cable (television) providers who have become our ISPs. The solution to such an exclusive contract is not to prohibit rate-limiting, but to allow competitors to enter the market. Access to utility poles, granting rights-of-way to lay wire, or if positive a…

> The solution to such an exclusive contract is not to prohibit rate-limiting, but to allow competitors to enter the market.

I don't understand why it is an either-or proposition. Seems to me the correct action is to do both.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#376

Post by cbd1984 »

ancap wrote: post #350
cbd1984 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think there is any such thing as a natural monopoly? Do you think the cost inherent in laying cables makes the entity that owns the cables a natural monopoly?

>Do you think there is any such thing as a natural monopoly? I am not aware of any. >Do you think the cost inherent in laying cables makes the entity that owns the cables a natural monopoly? No, otherwise the "natural monopoly" existed before the first company ever laid cables.

>> Do you think there is any such thing as a natural monopoly?

> I am not aware of any.

I think, judging by your username (ancap), you are philosophically opposed to the concept, because the existence of natural monopolies would represent a failure of the pure free market capitalism you promote.

I doubt I will convince you, and I doubt anyone else here needs to be convinced that natural monopolies exist.

>> Do you think the cost inherent in laying cables makes the entity that owns the cables a natural monopoly?

> No, otherwise the "natural monopoly" existed before the first company ever laid cables.

This simply does not make sense, which is further evidence that you're opposed to the concept. The high fixed costs of the laying of the cables relative to the small marginal cost of adding a new subscriber once cables have been laid is what creates a natural monopoly in this context. The massive economies of scale which are only available to the company which already has the cables laid make it infeasible for a new company to lay its own cables; that's how a natural monopoly is enforced.

Therefore, it's nonsense to imagine the monopoly existed before the cable was laid.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#377

Post by baddox »

gglitch wrote: post #228
CamperBob2 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know you can voluntarily send more money, right? http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm I'm sure it's already on your to-do list, of course.

I see this argument a lot but it seems specious to me - though anyone can voluntarily overpay their taxes, the lack of a guarantee that other taxpayers will similarly be contributing more means that my personal overcontribution will be meaningless to everyone but me.

At least you're admitting that you want more taxes so that everyone else is forced to pay for stuff you want. It's the nature of taxation, obviously, but it's so often hidden being euphemisms.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#378

Post by crdoconnor »

MCRed wrote: post #353
mariodiana wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me, this is proof they are still in bed with the ISPs The established players are quite often in favor of regulation, since it stifles up-and-comers who might out-compete them.

This is really the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. Liberals think that somehow the regulation will never be tainted by economic forces. Libertarians realize it is, and that the best regulation is the itchy feet of a free market where you can just choose to not do business with companies whose policies you don't like. By the time the internet is destroyed by regulation, those advocating for its complet…

>You have seen this happen recently with obamacare-- the government regulated the healthcare industry into the ground, and now nationalized health insurance as a "solution", which is already not working.

Because single payer works really well in other countries and has done for years, a fact that libertarians like to sweep under the carpet.

Obamacare isn't about extra government regulation and it never was. It was about taking an existing oligopolistic market and making purchase mandatory in exchange for a couple of minor concessions.

>Have a heart, protect rights, libertarians agree with you, but learn from the history. IT has never worked.

Oh god...

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#379

Post by crdoconnor »

djrogers wrote: post #72
freehunter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>market forces that encourage those improvements. Like a Comcast monopoly? You mean those market forces?

Most municipalities grant monopolies to cable providers based on the theory that it's the only way to get someone to build and maintain the cable infrastructure. Granted monopolies do not allow for market forces...

>Most municipalities grant monopolies to cable providers based on the theory that it's the only way to get someone to build and maintain the cable infrastructure.

The theory is crap. It's a way to give away public infrastructure to campaign contributors. It's corruption: pure and simple, and it worked really, really well for Comcast.

When some municipalities tried to build their own cable system, Comcast sued.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#380

Post by ericd »

Taniwha wrote: post #247
ericd wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electricity certainly gets used for lots of different things. UDP and TCP is what I want my ISPs concerned with, not what I'm doing with those packets.

no even that's too high - your ISP shouldn't be dealing with UDP or TCP (or anything else) - they should route IP packets and be done with it

Heh well, may help with QoS, but I guess that we've seen what a slippery slope that can be.
Post reply on HN