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

Etsy CEO to Businesses: If Net Neutrality Perishes, We Will Too

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 104 posts

Re: Etsy CEO to Businesses: If Net Neutrality Perishes, We Will Too

#71

Post by rayiner »

prepare wrote: post #64
rayiner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ISPs didn't spend billions building this network, they were handed billions of dollars from the government to build the network This is absolutely false. Almost all the existing cable infrastructure was built with private money. > Can you imagine trying to start a web based company and being forced to pay monthly fees to every single ISP just to get decent speeds to end users? So? It's precarious to build a bus…

>Almost all the existing cable infrastructure was built with private money. [citation needed] meanwhile, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_the_United_States#G... has a great list of numerous government programs and funds that have dispensed billions of dollars into network infrastructure in the US >I don't see why web businesses should be different than app businesses in this regard So you see the World Wide W…

> meanwhile, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_the_United_States#G.... has a great list of numerous government programs and funds that have dispensed billions of dollars into network infrastructure in the US

The only projects on that list that have distributed significant money are funded by the Universal Service Fund. That money doesn't come from general taxation, it comes from a specific tax on the telecom industry. Imagine if the government levied a 15% tax on smartphone sales and spent that money to subsidize telephones for the poor. Could you then turn around and say "Apple and Samsung are getting massive government subsidies?" That's basically what you're doing when you point to USF and say public money went into the telecom networks.

Moreover, this debate is mostly about cable, which has historically been a different sphere from "telecom" (i.e. the phone system). The networks we're talking about, Comcast's, TWC's, etc, are cable networks built with private money after deregulation in the 1990's.

> So you see the World Wide Web as an equivalent to the Android Play Store?

The World Wide Web is just a set of protocols that runs mostly on private networks. It's a platform owned by the companies that own those private networks.

Re: Etsy CEO to Businesses: If Net Neutrality Perishes, We Will Too

#72

Post by mikeash »

bcoates wrote: post #59
mikeash wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What deregulation, exactly?

The 1990s transition from the US Internet infrastructure being a government run research project to the multiple privately owned networks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation_Net...

That wasn't regulation, was it? It was originally a government project that they then opened up. There wasn't any regulation preventing private equivalents, and indeed there were quite a few private computer networks with similar capabilities. They all failed once the internet opened up, because the government-sponsored, government-run network was ultimately much superior.

Re: Etsy CEO to Businesses: If Net Neutrality Perishes, We Will Too

#73

Post by dragonwriter »

rayiner wrote: post #58
dragonwriter wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its odd to talk about net neutrality as something that might "perish" as if it ever existed for more than the couple of years before the FCC's order was struck down. The FCC Order was motivated by a desire to preserve what was seen by many as the status quo ante that was, at the time the order was adopted, perceived to be under threat as big providers began discriminating against certain remote endpoints and applic…

If the status quo ante was in place for decades, why do we need new laws to preserve it now? I don't see the apocalyptic future neutrality advocates envision. I think there is a battle over Netflix because its such an outlier in terms of bandwidth usage, and because their stance on peering was at odds with the accepted understanding of free peering (the "status quo ante"). I don't think the ISP battle with Netflix ca…

> If the status quo ante was in place for decades, why do we need new laws to preserve it now?

Because the voluntary behavior which maintained the status quo ante was observed to be changing.

> I think there is a battle over Netflix because its such an outlier in terms of bandwidth usage

While things like the attempt by broadband providers (largely also cable/IP TV providers) to impose anticompetitive discriminatory pay-for-access on competing video services were already on the horizon when the original FCC Open Internet Report and Order was issued (which is why such acts against competing video services were specifically called out in the Order in discussion of how its more general non-discrimination and non-blocking provisions would be applied), discrimination against particular edge providers isn't the sole focus of, or even really the main behavior change that motivated, net neutrality efforts. Blocking/discrimination of particular lawful end-user applications is at least as important in both aspects (of course, application-based discrimination and edge provider based discrimination overlap, since often an application is tied to a particular edge provider.)

> I don't think the ISP battle with Netflix can be generalized.

The issue, concerns, and specific behaviors at issue both predate the "ISP battle with Netflix" and have always been more general than it. Its not a matter of generalizing that battle, that's battle is simply today's most visible current manifestation of a general set of behaviors (Comcast's bittorrent blocking was the most visible recent exampe at the time FCC Open Internet Order.)

Re: Etsy CEO to Businesses: If Net Neutrality Perishes, We Will Too

#74

Post by macspoofing »

Afforess wrote: post #25
macspoofing wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're being downvoted because you haven't given any reasons why he's a public menace and specifically in what way he's spreading incorrect facts. You can't just call him names and leave it at that.

I didn't call him a name, I said he is a menace. He could be a otherwise intelligent phd holding user. But right now he is waving a preverbal gun around clueless to the danger he is causing. Menace isn't an insult.

You didn't say WHY he's menace. You didn't give any reasons for anything you stated.

// *proverbial

Re: Etsy CEO to Businesses: If Net Neutrality Perishes, We Will Too

#75

Post by dllthomas »

llamadrom wrote: post #55
mseebach wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't "ensure" it in the formal sense of the word, but in a system with actual competition, actors generally can't get away with "charging ransom".

This assertion is often put forth by naive Libertarian types, but it's simply not true. Cartels routinely emerge in markets with high barriers to entry. This happens even if there are laws against direct coordination and those laws are obeyed. The market players aren't dumb, and they realize that if the barrier to entry is high enough, they can maximize profits by simply not competing. Price wars are terrible things…

I mostly agree with the meat of your post, but agree with mseebach that it is needlessly hostile.

Re: Etsy CEO to Businesses: If Net Neutrality Perishes, We Will Too

#76

Post by dragonwriter »

rayiner wrote: post #69
pyre wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this situation, we should just let AT&T/Bell dictate all things internet, since they laid the foundation with their lines. ... at a time when the government guaranteed their profits. I think that's an important point to remember when a business built off of years of government-granted monopoly starts complaining about government regulation.

The monopoly was granted in return for all sorts of regulations (namely, universal service). The monopoly protection is gone now, so presumably should the regulations be gone. Moreover, how relevant is the pre-1980's POTS infrastructure to this whole debate? How many Netflix customers are on DSL that hasn't been rebuilt since the breakup?

> Moreover, how relevant is the pre-1980's POTS infrastructure to this whole debate?

Very

> How many Netflix customers are on DSL that hasn't been rebuilt since the breakup?

Even if its been rebuilt since the property rights were acquired, the fact that the property rights were acquired when the provider had a monopoly and government backing (and the same thing applies to the cable cos that are ISPs as to the telcos) is a substantial advantage over any new entrant.

Re: Etsy CEO to Businesses: If Net Neutrality Perishes, We Will Too

#77

Post by pdonis »

pyre wrote: post #57
pdonis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post you linked to confuses "fast lanes" with CDNs. They are not the same thing. CDNs are about making more copies of content and locating them closer to users, in order to make the average route to users shorter. There's nothing in that that is inconsistent with net neutrality: traffic from a CDN server to a given user doesn't get to the user any faster than any other traffic over the same route. "Fast lanes" ar…

> If governments want to make sure that everybody has Internet access, then governments should provide it themselves. ... but when the government starts rolling out Internet service, major ISPs lobby for laws to prevent it. The major ISPs can't say "Woe is us, we have to roll out service to unprofitable areas," then turn around and say, "Government, don't you dare service those people for us!" It comes across like th…

> when the government starts rolling out Internet service, major ISPs lobby for laws to prevent it

Yes, this is true, and I should have mentioned it in addition to mentioning the lawsuits they file. I think something like 20 states now have laws prohibiting local municipalities from installing their own networks, passed due to ISP lobbying.

Re: Etsy CEO to Businesses: If Net Neutrality Perishes, We Will Too

#78

Post by zanny »

ianlevesque wrote: post #9
KaiserPro wrote: post #4

This is going to draw a lot of negative points here, but its important to note that the issue of net neutrality is an issue because of the lack of competition in the states. If BT (largest ISP in the UK) tried to pull any of the stuff that's been going on, they would have been fined, and users would have left in droves. All the major ISPs here in the UK have multiple CDN node on the edge of their network, simply beca…

I don't see why that'd draw negative points. Most of us know that's the root issue, where we disagree is in deciding whether we should pretend we will somehow magically acquire more competition with the invisible hand of the market, or whether to give up and regulate some improvements into the failed market we have.

> somehow magically acquire more competition

Hard to do when anything and everything involving telecom is decidedly not free market. Just some larger obstructions:

* Zoning permits

* Getting permission to lay wire, even through private property

* Wireless Spectrum Ownership

* Zoning permits on broadcast towers

* Anti-competitive pressure through corrupt state institutions by incumbents against potential competition

* Absurdity of having a half dozen ISPs all running their own fiber lines under roads

Re: Etsy CEO to Businesses: If Net Neutrality Perishes, We Will Too

#79

Post by zanny »

mikeash wrote: post #18
KaiserPro wrote: post #4

This is going to draw a lot of negative points here, but its important to note that the issue of net neutrality is an issue because of the lack of competition in the states. If BT (largest ISP in the UK) tried to pull any of the stuff that's been going on, they would have been fined, and users would have left in droves. All the major ISPs here in the UK have multiple CDN node on the edge of their network, simply beca…

The thing is, the problem of net neutrality has a pretty clear solution. You force companies to carry all traffic equally, give no special treatment, etc. It's not perfect, but it works. What's the solution to the problem of a lack of competition?

> What's the solution to the problem of a lack of competition?

Either you remove restrictions on infrastructure building (ie, once one company is allowed to lay fiber or coax, any company must be allowed), or you have public ownership of the lines, or you compel the private owner of the lines to sell bandwidth on their lines at a state set rate.

Re: Etsy CEO to Businesses: If Net Neutrality Perishes, We Will Too

#80

Post by innguest »

cornewut wrote: post #32
ianlevesque wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why that'd draw negative points. Most of us know that's the root issue, where we disagree is in deciding whether we should pretend we will somehow magically acquire more competition with the invisible hand of the market, or whether to give up and regulate some improvements into the failed market we have.

I'm optimistic that we'll find a solution - "community broadband", "shared WiFi" etc. The problems we are seeing are because corporations are already failing as an infrastructure.

Corporations are failing because the government is setting them up for failure through regulation. It's not easy to start an ISP and as your sibling poster noted, it is not because of technical issues, but the laws that are in place.
Post reply on HN