4 ms·

The next implication, that my ISP should be competing with google and facebook, and that it would somehow level the playing field is at it's face ridiculous. I

The next implication, that my ISP should be competing with google and facebook, and that it would somehow level the playing field is at it's face ridiculous. I suppose the postal service should want to read our mail and the same isp's should need to listen to our phone calls; after all, it's only fair if Google or Facebook get to see the information we send to them. We either need to somehow incentivize more ISPs so the free market can fix these problems, or just regulate the hell out of them as a public good. Pretending they aren't a monopoly and don't need regulation because they exist in the free market today is incredibly anti-consumer.

rayiner 10y ago
If we're using market power as a justification for regulating privacy policies (which I think is perfectly reasonable), it makes no sense to draw a magic line with ISPs. With ISPs, we're basically talking about de facto as opposed to de jure monopolies (which distinguishes them from the Post Office, which retains certain monopoly protections in law). But lots of companies have tremendous de facto market power. Nearly the whole market is encompassed by just two desktop operating systems, two mobile operating systems, two search engines, and one social media platform. Sure, I could use Google+ and convince all my aunts and uncles in Bangladesh to use that so I can share photos of my daughter with them, but I could also subscribe to any of a number of satellite or DSL providers for broadband. If we are talking about viable, interchangeable alternatives, the reality is that there is very little choice in any of these markets. High barriers to entry limit those choices in broadband, and networking effects limit those choices in the area of search engines, social networking, etc. If market power is the justification for regulation, it makes no sense to not regulate any entity that has sufficient market power to implicate privacy concerns. Or, how about we just make it illegal to use private information for marketing purposes? Wouldn't that be simplest? Why do we need to engage in all this hair splitting?
- mattnewton 10y ago
  There is a precedent in regulating these isps, regarding the phone lines. There is also greater public interest - the public helped many of the isp's lay those lines. Regarding monopolies de jur, while it is technically different in practice many isps are legally the only incumbents because you cannot dig to lay more lines, and the municipalities have signed agreements to that effect barring anyone, including themselves, from offering replacement. I think it's completely disengenious to compare Facebook to my isp. I use Facebook rarely and it alone makes up a tiny portion of my digital life, with no access to to my search history, emails, bank portal, video watching history, etc. The market power there is of a different kind alone, and there is enormous friction to switching an isp. People have no problem sending photos over Snapchat these days and completely bypassing Facebook. People have no viable alternative to their isp. This is all to say, I'm not against more privacy regulations for Google and Facebook. But it doesn't factor in when comparing it to an ISP for me: they should not be called competitors, because it would not at all be a competition for data. The ISP just has all of it. This is not some slippery slope to socalizing everything with market power. This is fixing a clearly and presently broken system.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Even if your premises were true,[1] why does it matter? The government doesn't have to care how certain companies came to acquire market power. Regulation isn't a punishment for prior actions, it's designed to change conduct on a forward looking basis. Also, you might not use Facebook, but everyone else does. For your typical person, switching to a different ISP would be way easier than moving to a different social networking platform. When you say people don't have a choice with regards to broadband, there is an implicit qualifier that you're talking about comparable choices, because nearly everyone can get satellite on top of wired options. But what's the comparable alternative to Facebook where I can post pictures of my kid and have my family in Bangladesh see them? Facebook's market dominance is far larger in scope than any ISP. Look, I'm in agreement that ISPs shouldn't be able to use or sell this data. But I find the Internet company response to these rule changes to be pretty hypocritical in trying to split hairs and say privacy invasion is okay for some companies and not others. There shouldn't be a "level playing field" for this practice--we should just ban it. [1] The idea that any substantial portion of modern broadband networks was publicly funded is incorrect, as is the idea that there are legal prohibitions on who can "dig to lay more lines."
    - mattnewton 10y ago
      1) It matters not because of punishment but because how how unlikely new people are able to enter this market. 2) this park of facebook's market (sharing photos with relatives) is extremely easy to enter. Before Facebook there was Flickr, MySpace, etc. Now you can send pictures to your family using Dropbox, google plus, google drive, and practically any messaging app ever made, including Snapchat off the top of my head here. If you don't like one thing about Facebook you can just send a link to another service (from Facebook even, if that is your only mode of communication). 3) I think we are in violent agreement about there needing to be more regulations around our privacy all around. But the difference is real and material between pointing your browser at a different URL and essentially moving counties or states to some place where you have an option #2. As for your footnote, i'm pretty sure it's not incorrect, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_the_United_States#/editor/11 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_the_United_State... And for regulations prohibiting more, the first article I found: https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju... But also this is the case locally where I live where there is a well liked County ISP battling hard against Comcast to be able to get more easements for more lines. And this is near Silicon Valley where there is a local ISP run by (the right kind of) crazy people. Drive a few miles and you'll be right back in monopoly territory.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

rayiner 10y ago

If we're using market power as a justification for regulating privacy policies (which I think is perfectly reasonable), it makes no sense to draw a magic line with ISPs. With ISPs, we're basically talking about de facto as opposed to de jure monopolies (which distinguishes them from the Post Office, which retains certain monopoly protections in law). But lots of companies have tremendous de facto market power. Nearly the whole market is encompassed by just two desktop operating systems, two mobile operating systems, two search engines, and one social media platform. Sure, I could use Google+ and convince all my aunts and uncles in Bangladesh to use that so I can share photos of my daughter with them, but I could also subscribe to any of a number of satellite or DSL providers for broadband. If we are talking about viable, interchangeable alternatives, the reality is that there is very little choice in any of these markets. High barriers to entry limit those choices in broadband, and networking effects limit those choices in the area of search engines, social networking, etc. If market power is the justification for regulation, it makes no sense to not regulate any entity that has sufficient market power to implicate privacy concerns. Or, how about we just make it illegal to use private information for marketing purposes? Wouldn't that be simplest? Why do we need to engage in all this hair splitting?

mattnewton 10y ago
There is a precedent in regulating these isps, regarding the phone lines. There is also greater public interest - the public helped many of the isp's lay those lines. Regarding monopolies de jur, while it is technically different in practice many isps are legally the only incumbents because you cannot dig to lay more lines, and the municipalities have signed agreements to that effect barring anyone, including themselves, from offering replacement. I think it's completely disengenious to compare Facebook to my isp. I use Facebook rarely and it alone makes up a tiny portion of my digital life, with no access to to my search history, emails, bank portal, video watching history, etc. The market power there is of a different kind alone, and there is enormous friction to switching an isp. People have no problem sending photos over Snapchat these days and completely bypassing Facebook. People have no viable alternative to their isp. This is all to say, I'm not against more privacy regulations for Google and Facebook. But it doesn't factor in when comparing it to an ISP for me: they should not be called competitors, because it would not at all be a competition for data. The ISP just has all of it. This is not some slippery slope to socalizing everything with market power. This is fixing a clearly and presently broken system.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Even if your premises were true,[1] why does it matter? The government doesn't have to care how certain companies came to acquire market power. Regulation isn't a punishment for prior actions, it's designed to change conduct on a forward looking basis. Also, you might not use Facebook, but everyone else does. For your typical person, switching to a different ISP would be way easier than moving to a different social networking platform. When you say people don't have a choice with regards to broadband, there is an implicit qualifier that you're talking about comparable choices, because nearly everyone can get satellite on top of wired options. But what's the comparable alternative to Facebook where I can post pictures of my kid and have my family in Bangladesh see them? Facebook's market dominance is far larger in scope than any ISP. Look, I'm in agreement that ISPs shouldn't be able to use or sell this data. But I find the Internet company response to these rule changes to be pretty hypocritical in trying to split hairs and say privacy invasion is okay for some companies and not others. There shouldn't be a "level playing field" for this practice--we should just ban it. [1] The idea that any substantial portion of modern broadband networks was publicly funded is incorrect, as is the idea that there are legal prohibitions on who can "dig to lay more lines."
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    1) It matters not because of punishment but because how how unlikely new people are able to enter this market. 2) this park of facebook's market (sharing photos with relatives) is extremely easy to enter. Before Facebook there was Flickr, MySpace, etc. Now you can send pictures to your family using Dropbox, google plus, google drive, and practically any messaging app ever made, including Snapchat off the top of my head here. If you don't like one thing about Facebook you can just send a link to another service (from Facebook even, if that is your only mode of communication). 3) I think we are in violent agreement about there needing to be more regulations around our privacy all around. But the difference is real and material between pointing your browser at a different URL and essentially moving counties or states to some place where you have an option #2. As for your footnote, i'm pretty sure it's not incorrect, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_the_United_States#/editor/11 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_the_United_State... And for regulations prohibiting more, the first article I found: https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju... But also this is the case locally where I live where there is a well liked County ISP battling hard against Comcast to be able to get more easements for more lines. And this is near Silicon Valley where there is a local ISP run by (the right kind of) crazy people. Drive a few miles and you'll be right back in monopoly territory.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]