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

51–60 of 60 posts

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

#51

Post by crazy1van »

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 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.

That's harsh. Most libertarians aren't anarchists...

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

#52

Post by Jtsummers »

crazy1van wrote: post #50
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.

Of course there are public goods, but your fire department analogy doesn't work. We have fire departments standing by in case there's a fire. So, sure, a fire department that services your neighborhood is great, but you probably wouldn't want to pay for one that doesn't service your neighborhood.

> So, sure, a fire department that services your neighborhood is great, but you probably wouldn't want to pay for one that doesn't service your neighborhood.

Except we do pay them. I live in a fairly well off area in middle Georgia (by non-metro Atlanta standards at least). But we have a couple neighboring counties that, left to their own devices, wouldn't be able to afford much in the way of a fire department (median income drops by $10-20k, populations also lower so they can't make up the taxes in aggregate). Our state taxes get partially redistributed to permit those poorer counties/cities to have an essential service. (Note: I know that the state spends on fire, my brief search did not reveal a county-by-county breakdown)

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

#53

Post by crazy1van »

dotrob wrote: post #32
crazy1van wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Interesting point. But I have too much faith in human ingenuity to believe that without a common carrier telephone system we wouldn't have an internet right now. Maybe the path and details would differ.

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

#54

Post by pbreit »

crazy1van wrote: post #20
pbreit wrote: post #11

I don't know how Marc squares his free markets love with his presence at the table being substantially enabled by the government (internet + UIUC + NCSA). Surely people have not forgotten what it was like pre-neutrality (Compuserve, Prodigy, Genie, AOL, et al)?

I don't really understand the fear. The Compuserves and Prodigys of the world died because they weren't open and it didn't take a government dictate to kill them.

I'm not talking about why they died (that's obvious, the non-corporate internet was much better). I'm talking about how lousy the offerings were when the pipe providers could do whatever they wanted.

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

#55

Post by roin »

calroc wrote: post #49
roin wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Faulty frame. Try it with other basic infrastructure: "The more money I think I can make by owning ROAD infrastructure, the more I will invest to build it now." See the flaw?

I do not see the flaw. The statement in quotes, while a simplification, is correct if a private company is making the decision. If a government is making the decision (typical with roads, not with broadband), there are a ton of other factors, although in an ideal world they would also try to do a similar NPV calculation. In any case, the government doesn't own broadband.

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

#56

Post by calroc »

roin wrote: post #55
calroc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Faulty frame. Try it with other basic infrastructure: "The more money I think I can make by owning ROAD infrastructure, the more I will invest to build it now." See the flaw?

I do not see the flaw. The statement in quotes, while a simplification, is correct if a private company is making the decision. If a government is making the decision (typical with roads, not with broadband), there are a ton of other factors, although in an ideal world they would also try to do a similar NPV calculation. In any case, the government doesn't own broadband.

Bandwidth is infrastructure, like roads. It should be managed by civic authority for civic benefit, not exploited to increase private wealth.

Do you actually want to deal with a biased pipe?

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

#57

Post by roin »

calroc wrote: post #56
roin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not see the flaw. The statement in quotes, while a simplification, is correct if a private company is making the decision. If a government is making the decision (typical with roads, not with broadband), there are a ton of other factors, although in an ideal world they would also try to do a similar NPV calculation. In any case, the government doesn't own broadband.

Bandwidth is infrastructure, like roads. It should be managed by civic authority for civic benefit, not exploited to increase private wealth. Do you actually want to deal with a biased pipe?

No I don't, and that is a big pro of net neutrality. But that doesn't mean there are no cons.

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

#58

Post by calroc »

roin wrote: post #57
calroc wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bandwidth is infrastructure, like roads. It should be managed by civic authority for civic benefit, not exploited to increase private wealth. Do you actually want to deal with a biased pipe?

No I don't, and that is a big pro of net neutrality. But that doesn't mean there are no cons.

Okay, what are they? And I mean cons from the POV of users (and hosts are users too in this sense) not from the POV of an unnecessary commercial organisation overlaid (overlain?) on the infrastructure.

I'm not being snarky here, I'd really like to think a new thought.

(To be fair, or just contrary, I kinda feel that all the porn and ads might due with a little reduced service, but I'm not megalomaniacal enough to think that I should get to decide for everyone else..)

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

#59

Post by glesica »

Jtsummers wrote: post #39
glesica wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Clearly I need to work on my sarcasm-detector... :)

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

#60

Post by Jtsummers »

glesica wrote: post #59
Jtsummers wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I left the /s implied.

Clearly I need to work on my sarcasm-detector... :)

No worries. I probably need to cut down on my sarcasm, especially online, but I've found it to be the most effective "shutup" tool in my bag when dealing with this extreme mindset. As an example, two weeks ago I was at dinner with some folks including a Catholic seminarian and a young USAF officer. The seminarian was commenting on topics related to social justice, something he's devoted most of his adult life to, and the need for government involvement. Young officer says he believes taxation is "immoral", as it's taking money from other people by force. My response, "But you're paid with tax dollars...". I didn't have to continue that line of thought before he switched topics. I guess the really unfortunate thing is that I've had to use that same line on a number of civil servants and government contractors in this area. They don't seem to appreciate the hypocrisy of denouncing the government for taxing them, while being paid with tax dollars, until someone else calls them out on it. And two days later they'll be ranting again.
Post reply on HN