Hacker News Reader

Comment by metaphorm | Hacker News Reader

"ideal society" thought experiments get degenerate and wacky in a hurry. let's talk about reality, if you wouldn't mind.

Net Neutrality is specifically the idea that delivery of bytes of data over internet connections amounts to a global public commons that is a shared resource for everyone. Just as we make laws to prevent someone from putting up an enclosure fence around public meadows, we also have the idea of net neutrality so nobody puts up a virtual enclosure ("high priority lanes") around the internet. i.e. everybody pays the same rate for traffic delivery regardless of the origin or content of the traffic.

you're right that this was an inevitable power play that would be made by monopolist rent-seeking corporations as soon as they could get away with it. the importance of strong regulations on this issue cannot be emphasized enough.

View on HN

I think you make good points. But by having additional compliance rules, it becomes slightly harder to compete with the ISP.

This argument, therefore, taken to a natural conclusion gives up on competition at the ISP level in favor of competition at the data level.

I think the counter argument is that by allowing for way more competition at the ISP level - there is no data level competition problem (the problem becomes how to allow for more ISP competition).

This side of the argument would love to see all users have access to 5 or more ISP choices where today more than 25% have access to 2 or less.

the really noxious combination is local ISP monopolies (most neighborhoods in NYC have only 1 broadband ISP available, for example) with upstream non-neutral internet backbones.

this leads to extreme service reduction and price gouging of consumers, as all the costs of paid prioritization that the backbone imposes on the local ISP get passed right through to the end user.

this is particularly problematic for mobile internet access too, since the mobile data provider is often owned by the same parent company as a large backbone company.

totally agree. but my understanding is 'net neutrality' accepts this monopoly as a given and says the monopoly needs to be regulated. i think opponents would say - let's try to allow for competition (to break up the monopoly without central planning intervention).

How exactly would that competiton work? Should we wire 5 coaxial cables into each house/building? Let each ISP lay their own fiber? The discussion around competition supposes that the current incumbents are required to share their pipes, which can only happen through regulation.

ah, I guess I wasn't clear. the point/opinion I was trying to convey is that without getting rid of large corporations there's no way to avoid these issues. I was just curious why there's so much emphasis on his particular issue, which I believe not to be the real problem.

I agree with your claim that we need regulations. I just don't see how they'll last, given corporations' influence on our democracy and government. Isn't this article in particular case and point?

there's a lot of emphasis on this particular manifestation of the larger issue (our society is ruled by monopolist rent-seeking corporations) because it is 1) highly visible and effects something in everyone's daily life and 2) was previously the subject of a partially successful popular campaign that temporarily pushed back against monopolists

ah, I see. I certainly don't disagree with you. however, since people I believe have a limited amount of "political capital" to spend on various issues, I worry that we'll waste it all putting on bandages to problems that the "enemy" will take off in short time, instead of solving the problem.

and then, (hopefully not, but maybe) we'll grow tired of trying to fight and just accept things as being the new status quo.

I think this fight is worth fighting. The internet is a fundamental communication tool that will be necessary to bring the fight in other spheres as well.

If you somehow manage to ban large corporations across the board you will probably just move that level of power underground to the mafia, pulling the strings of a set of smaller companies...

What we need firstly is an education campaign because corporations have waged a huge propaganda campaign for decades now, and have mostly successded in moulding people's attitudes and beliefs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com