6 ms·

No company that sells Internet access should be allowed to also be in the content business.

by ajmurmann 10y ago

tinalumfoil 10y ago
Having a web content business incentivizes ISPs to provide faster internet. Case in point: Google Fiber
- shmerl 10y ago
  Or it incentivizes them to hinder competitors who are routed through their network. It's a clear conflict of interests. Case in point, Comcast is capping their Internet in order to hinder competing video services, but their own video is not capped.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
droopybuns 10y ago
Should Google be allowed to sell fiber? I think the suggestion that carriers shouldn't do this is wrong and naive and here is why: User count should not ever be exponential of customer counts. It inescapably results in fundamentally unethical business practices where users are exploited. That is google's business model and they stand uncontested today. Carriers that end up doing any amount of content monetization will never disrupt Google, but they can create pressure that drives the cost of ads down, making google's life harder. I think this is so important that I am happily willing to endure the judgement of everyone here. I know this is downvote bait, but I keep thinking at some point everyone here will see the net positive on all possible angles.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  I can't parse this. Especially "User count should not ever be exponential of customer counts". Wat. I'm not seeing the connection between content monetisation and Google's ads business either.
  - droopybuns 10y ago
    Google users number in the billions. Paying Google customers number in the millions. For example Google drive: http://fortune.com/2015/09/21/google-drive-1m-paid-users/ http://fortune.com/2015/09/21/google-drive-1m-paid-users/ W/r/t ads: the carriers who are aggregating anonymous useage data and reselling it are not revolutionizing their revenue. They are deflating the value of ads. This cuts into Google profit margins.
    - ericd 10y ago
      The problem is that exponential implies a difference in growth rate. Clearer would be to say that user counts should never many orders of magnitude greater than paying customer counts. I don't agree with this, but it's clearer.
      - droopybuns 10y ago
        I concede your point. Exponential doesn't provide clarity where I want it.
- manigandham 10y ago
  > User count should not ever be exponential of customer counts. This makes no sense. This is the backbone of the entire internet. Ethics and the value that users get from a company/service are all subjective, there's no hard rule that you can lay down like this.
  - droopybuns 10y ago
    It makes plenty of sense. I am annoyed that you cast me as illogical simply because you disagree. Something has changed in modern discourse and your reaction has become distressingly common. Here is an article from 2012, enumerating the same point: http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/03/05/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-you-become-the-product/#4b997d71b445 http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/03/05/if-youre-... Here is another from 2010: http://lifehacker.com/5697167/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-youre-the-product http://lifehacker.com/5697167/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-you... If this is a new idea to you, you might want to consider broadening your debate network.
    - manigandham 10y ago
      This isn't a new idea or theory, it's older than the internet itself. So what? This is a tired argument that doesn't really make a point. People being "the product" isn't some inherently bad thing. These platforms have so many engaged users because they do actually deliver value to those users, whether you think so or not. Maybe you want to pay for a social network but others want it free and are fine with the trade-off. Both perspectives are fine and what's important is that you have a choice, but saying that "user counts should never be exponential of customer counts" still makes no sense as it not up to you to decide everyone else's fate. Does that really seem logical to you?
      - droopybuns 10y ago
        Strawman. >>it not up to you to decide everyone else's fate I'm not asking anyone to live to my values. Many others share them. I think the point that users should not exceed customers is easy to understand. Many people agree with me. Many others dont. I have turned down an offer at Google because I couldn't reconcile the bad stuff. I wish more people agreed with me, but I don't say that those who don't are illogical. They simply have different values. That is OK if you value diversity.
rayiner 10y ago
What's the underlying principle there? That infrastructure providers shouldn't be in potential competition with companies that use their infrastructure as part of their own business model? By that logic, should Apple, Google, and Microsoft be required to get out of the hardware business? How would application of that principle affect things like app stores or Facebook's platform, or even Valve's Steam for that matter?
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Standard Oil. Extraction. Transport. Refining. Distribution. Sale. Seemed to result in some issues as I recall. Mixing common-carrier status with provider-of-goods is quite inherently problematic. I've got some pretty strong issues with Google's status as both search provider and other services, or with their dominant position in infrastructure, services, operating systems, applications marketplace, and on a growing basis, bandwidth provision. Some of that is based on actual practices of the company. More is on the basis that when this has been tried before it's come to tears.
  - RA_Fisher 10y ago
    Standard Oil may have accrued monopoly power, but at least to me it's not a foregone conclusion the company should have broken up. Yes, indeed, Rockefeller consolidated industries and bought many competitors, but he was also a master of efficiency and cost-savings. If it weren't for the break-up we might have had lower cost petroleum and as a result greater economic prosperity.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      I'm of somewhat mixed minds on the question myself, though the fact that Rockefeller organised the industry for his own company's, and his own personal, benefit, gives strong pause. As to the price of oil, I can pretty much guarantee you it would have been far lower, though also quite probably much more volatile. I've posted a few times recently on the Texas Railroad Commission and general tendencies throughout the history of oil, and other extractive industries, for either monopolies, consortia, cabals, or government controls (or some mix of the above) to form to limit extractive activity and drive prices up. I have concerns about private appropriation of the fruits of this activity. I'm also fairly convinced that oil prices are set low by the market. By something on the order of a millionfold. Why and what to do about that is a longer comment. As to the particulars of Standard Oil, the company arranged for rebates, intercepted (and occasionally changed) competitor's communications, engaged in what are now entirely illegal, and were seen then as highly immoral, business practices, and much more. The industry as a whole tended to be organised around such practices, and if it weren't John D. it would likely have been someone else who'd have emerged. He played the game best and/or had some early lucky streaks. But I really cannot support the methods he used. If power is to accrue, let it be channeled through the democratic mechanisms for managing it: government. Not privately held corporations. Fuller expansion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12140195 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12140195

No company that sells Internet access should be allowed to also be in the content business.

tinalumfoil 10y ago

Having a web content business incentivizes ISPs to provide faster internet. Case in point: Google Fiber

shmerl 10y ago
Or it incentivizes them to hinder competitors who are routed through their network. It's a clear conflict of interests. Case in point, Comcast is capping their Internet in order to hinder competing video services, but their own video is not capped.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

droopybuns 10y ago

Should Google be allowed to sell fiber? I think the suggestion that carriers shouldn't do this is wrong and naive and here is why: User count should not ever be exponential of customer counts. It inescapably results in fundamentally unethical business practices where users are exploited. That is google's business model and they stand uncontested today. Carriers that end up doing any amount of content monetization will never disrupt Google, but they can create pressure that drives the cost of ads down, making google's life harder. I think this is so important that I am happily willing to endure the judgement of everyone here. I know this is downvote bait, but I keep thinking at some point everyone here will see the net positive on all possible angles.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 10y ago
I can't parse this. Especially "User count should not ever be exponential of customer counts". Wat. I'm not seeing the connection between content monetisation and Google's ads business either.
- droopybuns 10y ago
  Google users number in the billions. Paying Google customers number in the millions. For example Google drive: http://fortune.com/2015/09/21/google-drive-1m-paid-users/ http://fortune.com/2015/09/21/google-drive-1m-paid-users/ W/r/t ads: the carriers who are aggregating anonymous useage data and reselling it are not revolutionizing their revenue. They are deflating the value of ads. This cuts into Google profit margins.
  - ericd 10y ago
    The problem is that exponential implies a difference in growth rate. Clearer would be to say that user counts should never many orders of magnitude greater than paying customer counts. I don't agree with this, but it's clearer.
    - droopybuns 10y ago
      I concede your point. Exponential doesn't provide clarity where I want it.
manigandham 10y ago
> User count should not ever be exponential of customer counts. This makes no sense. This is the backbone of the entire internet. Ethics and the value that users get from a company/service are all subjective, there's no hard rule that you can lay down like this.
- droopybuns 10y ago
  It makes plenty of sense. I am annoyed that you cast me as illogical simply because you disagree. Something has changed in modern discourse and your reaction has become distressingly common. Here is an article from 2012, enumerating the same point: http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/03/05/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-you-become-the-product/#4b997d71b445 http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/03/05/if-youre-... Here is another from 2010: http://lifehacker.com/5697167/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-youre-the-product http://lifehacker.com/5697167/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-you... If this is a new idea to you, you might want to consider broadening your debate network.
  - manigandham 10y ago
    This isn't a new idea or theory, it's older than the internet itself. So what? This is a tired argument that doesn't really make a point. People being "the product" isn't some inherently bad thing. These platforms have so many engaged users because they do actually deliver value to those users, whether you think so or not. Maybe you want to pay for a social network but others want it free and are fine with the trade-off. Both perspectives are fine and what's important is that you have a choice, but saying that "user counts should never be exponential of customer counts" still makes no sense as it not up to you to decide everyone else's fate. Does that really seem logical to you?
    - droopybuns 10y ago
      Strawman. >>it not up to you to decide everyone else's fate I'm not asking anyone to live to my values. Many others share them. I think the point that users should not exceed customers is easy to understand. Many people agree with me. Many others dont. I have turned down an offer at Google because I couldn't reconcile the bad stuff. I wish more people agreed with me, but I don't say that those who don't are illogical. They simply have different values. That is OK if you value diversity.

rayiner 10y ago

What's the underlying principle there? That infrastructure providers shouldn't be in potential competition with companies that use their infrastructure as part of their own business model? By that logic, should Apple, Google, and Microsoft be required to get out of the hardware business? How would application of that principle affect things like app stores or Facebook's platform, or even Valve's Steam for that matter?

dredmorbius 10y ago
Standard Oil. Extraction. Transport. Refining. Distribution. Sale. Seemed to result in some issues as I recall. Mixing common-carrier status with provider-of-goods is quite inherently problematic. I've got some pretty strong issues with Google's status as both search provider and other services, or with their dominant position in infrastructure, services, operating systems, applications marketplace, and on a growing basis, bandwidth provision. Some of that is based on actual practices of the company. More is on the basis that when this has been tried before it's come to tears.
- RA_Fisher 10y ago
  Standard Oil may have accrued monopoly power, but at least to me it's not a foregone conclusion the company should have broken up. Yes, indeed, Rockefeller consolidated industries and bought many competitors, but he was also a master of efficiency and cost-savings. If it weren't for the break-up we might have had lower cost petroleum and as a result greater economic prosperity.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    I'm of somewhat mixed minds on the question myself, though the fact that Rockefeller organised the industry for his own company's, and his own personal, benefit, gives strong pause. As to the price of oil, I can pretty much guarantee you it would have been far lower, though also quite probably much more volatile. I've posted a few times recently on the Texas Railroad Commission and general tendencies throughout the history of oil, and other extractive industries, for either monopolies, consortia, cabals, or government controls (or some mix of the above) to form to limit extractive activity and drive prices up. I have concerns about private appropriation of the fruits of this activity. I'm also fairly convinced that oil prices are set low by the market. By something on the order of a millionfold. Why and what to do about that is a longer comment. As to the particulars of Standard Oil, the company arranged for rebates, intercepted (and occasionally changed) competitor's communications, engaged in what are now entirely illegal, and were seen then as highly immoral, business practices, and much more. The industry as a whole tended to be organised around such practices, and if it weren't John D. it would likely have been someone else who'd have emerged. He played the game best and/or had some early lucky streaks. But I really cannot support the methods he used. If power is to accrue, let it be channeled through the democratic mechanisms for managing it: government. Not privately held corporations. Fuller expansion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12140195 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12140195