3 ms·

Just curious: in an ideal society, where there are no super large corporations that would abuse their advantage here, would this be a big deal? Isn't this simi

by tabeth 10y ago

Just curious: in an ideal society, where there are no super large corporations that would abuse their advantage here, would this be a big deal? Isn't this similar to the advantage that capitalists have when buying huge swathes of land? I imagine that if this passes companies would then start selling their "high priority" traffic to smaller companies. I'm pretty ignorant to the history of Net Neutrality, but this seemed inevitable to me. Seems to me that every time there's a "constrained" resource (though internet access is arbitrarily constrained) large companies end up dominating it. It sounds to me that the real problem is the existence of large companies that have the resources to exploit advantages to begin with.

metaphorm 10y ago
"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.
- tabeth 10y ago
  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?
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    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
    - tabeth 10y ago
      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.
      - metaphorm 10y ago
        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.
      - dagss 10y ago
        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...
  - Synaesthesia 10y ago
    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.
- jpwagner 10y ago
  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.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    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.
    - jpwagner 10y ago
      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).
      - infinite8s 10y ago
        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.
ardacinar 10y ago
In a perfect free market where literally nobody (not just super large corporations, anyone with any advantage, be it scale, efficiency, whatever) abuses their advantage, this would definitely not be a big deal. In fact, it would be detrimental to overall economic efficiency. Unfortunately, the world we live in is not a perfect one and thus, there is a need for such regulations.
- splintercell 10y ago
  >abuses their advantage What defines "abuse the advantage"?
mattnewton 10y ago
The real problem is the infrastructure required cooperation of the public to build, using public funds and eminent domain to get these cables threaded through the last mile to people's homes. Now we are told the public's interests should not be expressed through regulation but market power that doesn't exist, because no one else can replicate that infrastructure, sometimes literally by law but often just as prohibitively by the economics of fiber buildout. In my (unqualified and amateur) opinion, competition and the free market is often a fragile and unnatural state that requires active intervention to maintain. Trust-busting progressives are not in conflict with capitalism, but I think are the necessary gardeners of a wild and unruly competitive landscape.
emodendroket 10y ago
And how are a bunch of small, boutique companies supposed to build out massive, nationwide infrastructure to provide Internet service? If it's by the government, what's the advantage of letting in private middlemen to skim off the top?

by tabeth 10y ago

metaphorm 10y ago

"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.

tabeth 10y ago
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?
- metaphorm 10y ago
  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
  - tabeth 10y ago
    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.
    - metaphorm 10y ago
      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.
    - dagss 10y ago
      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...
- Synaesthesia 10y ago
  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.
jpwagner 10y ago
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.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  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.
  - jpwagner 10y ago
    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).
    - infinite8s 10y ago
      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.

ardacinar 10y ago

In a perfect free market where literally nobody (not just super large corporations, anyone with any advantage, be it scale, efficiency, whatever) abuses their advantage, this would definitely not be a big deal. In fact, it would be detrimental to overall economic efficiency. Unfortunately, the world we live in is not a perfect one and thus, there is a need for such regulations.

splintercell 10y ago
>abuses their advantage What defines "abuse the advantage"?

mattnewton 10y ago

The real problem is the infrastructure required cooperation of the public to build, using public funds and eminent domain to get these cables threaded through the last mile to people's homes. Now we are told the public's interests should not be expressed through regulation but market power that doesn't exist, because no one else can replicate that infrastructure, sometimes literally by law but often just as prohibitively by the economics of fiber buildout. In my (unqualified and amateur) opinion, competition and the free market is often a fragile and unnatural state that requires active intervention to maintain. Trust-busting progressives are not in conflict with capitalism, but I think are the necessary gardeners of a wild and unruly competitive landscape.

emodendroket 10y ago

And how are a bunch of small, boutique companies supposed to build out massive, nationwide infrastructure to provide Internet service? If it's by the government, what's the advantage of letting in private middlemen to skim off the top?