7 ms·

"Restoring Internet Freedom" It reminds me of some Newspeak the government in 1984 would say. Just blatantly saying the opposite of what they are doing like th

"Restoring Internet Freedom" It reminds me of some Newspeak the government in 1984 would say. Just blatantly saying the opposite of what they are doing like that will make it true. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength

Kenji 10y ago
Freedom as another word for 'regulating to death'. I feel so free in modern society, as the body of law grows day by day, already being a completely incomprehensible mess that no human (or company) can abide by. EDIT: Also, before you downvote, please try to find a fault in the following statement: 'as the body of law grows day by day, already being a completely incomprehensible mess that no human (or company) can abide by.' If you can, please post why. If you cannot, please go back to pondering about this.
- admax88q 10y ago
  Are the ISPs really being regulated to death?
  - Kenji 10y ago
    Yes. The number of things ISPs have to do is already ridiculous. I.e. data retention, etc. None of this has any benefit for the customers, and it is why growth is hampered.
    - thomastjeffery 10y ago
      > None of this has any benefit for the customers Net neutrality has many benefits for customers. Net neutrality has no detriments for customers. Net neutrality is what we are talking about here. When we conflate "all regulation" with "one regulation", we disregard any meaningful conversation about the "one regulation" with a mess of argument over "all regulation". Please, help us stop doing that. If you want to talk about any of the other regulations, I would love to have a conversation about them. Just be specific, please.
  - dsr_ 10y ago
    Let's assume that they are. What predictions can we make from that assumption, given what happens to other utilities that are closely regulated by the government? - Services would be tightly constrained by regulation. You should see all ISPs offering the same set of services in all locations, with the same bandwidths and guarantees. - Services would be tightly constrained on price: the price for 100Mb/s bidirectional service in Philadelphia should be the same as in Pittsburgh or Punxatawny. - Nobody would care who their ISP was, because the regulated service is about the same everywhere. - All the ISPs would have mandated interconnection exchanges where they would be forced to settle traffic with each other. When they get to defined packet loss rates with any other provider, both sides need to improve their connection. - Prices would change every few years, when the public utility commission approved a rate hike. The ISPs would ask for 8% and get 4% and complain that they were going to go out of business. Same as last time. - ISPs would be very boring stocks, growing slowly and issuing a regular dividend. - The big news this year would be that IPv6 routing was going to change from an optional extra-fee service to a built-in on everyone's bill. Basically, look up the way that the Baby Bells acted between 1982 and 1996.
- hackuser 10y ago
  I'd love to see some serious information and expert analysis about these kind of claims. How much regulation is there? Is it more or less? Where is it too much, where is it too little, and how do we decide? What outcomes does it produce and for what costs? The talking points, such as those in the parent, are well-known and popular among large business and its advocates, but being often-repeated doesn't make them true (especially for political talking points). Personally, I have had little experience with problematic regulations. Some businesses I work with have to follow them, but the ones I'm aware of seem to protect the public from injury and fraud. Certainly I'm glad my water, air travel, roads, financial system, legal system, etc. are regulated. But neither my personal experience nor the talking points are useful knowledge. It shows how little we know about the subject - and how mindlessly politicized it is - that there is almost no commonly known, serious knowledge about it.
  - Kenji 10y ago
    I just look at my Romanian friends. Basically they have 10x more internet speed at 10x less price, just so, despite living in a much poorer country. The reason: It's basically wild west and the state hasn't yet regulated ISPs to death. This is just one of many examples where you see such patterns. Just because my comments fit a narrative doesn't mean I cannot back them up, or they serve special interests of mine.
    - lobster_johnson 10y ago
      That doesn't mean the same will happen if you deregulate the US. Most ISPs are already monopolies. Where would the competitors come from? ISPs in countries like Romania blossomed because many small providers were able to compete with each other from the outset. In the US, the initially fragmented market (the "Baby Bells" etc.) have congealed into just a few major players that have no incentive to compete.
    - outsidetheparty 10y ago
      Alternative explanation: Romania is a comparatively teeny tiny country so the necessary infrastructure costs are a fraction of what they would be here. Or: see the UK and Netherlands, where government regulation improved service by forcing more competition in the broadband market [1], i.e. exactly the opposite of your "regulated to death" claim. In all three of those examples, increased competition seems to have been the real explanation for reduced prices and improved service, not deregulation as you claim. https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/ https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadban...
objectivistbrit 10y ago
No, you are the one who has redefined freedom. Freedom originally meant that you could deal with whoever you wanted on whatever terms both parties could agree on. It didn't mean the government regulating private businesses to ensure some specific outcome. I understand why HN wants net neutrality: the majority here think that ISPs have undeserved control, and so the government needs to step in to ensure a level playing field. Still, if someone advocated "search engine neutrality", arguing that the govt should regulate Google's search results to ensure everyone had a fair chance, there would be uproar. Similarly, if someone argued for "platform neutrality", holding that every startup that offered some kind of API had to register with the gov't to ensure their services were equally available to all others, the insanity would be obvious.
- lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
  The difference is a question of infrastructure. If your ISP trottles your connection you have maybe one local competitor (doing the same thing) or live without internet. Utilites are treated as public works; imagine if the power company charged higher rates depending on what electronics were used. There simply is no comparison to regulation at a platform level and I wish people would stop using that straw-man every time they rush to defend the poor telecoms and their "freedom".
  - metachor 10y ago
    Power companies do charge different rates depending on what electronics are used. Energy utility rate structures are both complex and unique to the individual company, but at a high level different classes of consumer pay different rate plans, such as residential vs. commercial/industrial vs. agricultural, and which is ultimately determined by the type of and quantity of certain electronic devices installed on premise as is normal for that class. With that said, as a residential consumer there is little chance that you could ever legally or physically install one of the devices at your home that would necessitate being charged a CI or agricultural rate. And interestingly enough those rates are all regulated by very heavy weight local/state and federal regulatory commissions.

Kenji 10y ago

Freedom as another word for 'regulating to death'. I feel so free in modern society, as the body of law grows day by day, already being a completely incomprehensible mess that no human (or company) can abide by. EDIT: Also, before you downvote, please try to find a fault in the following statement: 'as the body of law grows day by day, already being a completely incomprehensible mess that no human (or company) can abide by.' If you can, please post why. If you cannot, please go back to pondering about this.

admax88q 10y ago
Are the ISPs really being regulated to death?
- Kenji 10y ago
  Yes. The number of things ISPs have to do is already ridiculous. I.e. data retention, etc. None of this has any benefit for the customers, and it is why growth is hampered.
  - thomastjeffery 10y ago
    > None of this has any benefit for the customers Net neutrality has many benefits for customers. Net neutrality has no detriments for customers. Net neutrality is what we are talking about here. When we conflate "all regulation" with "one regulation", we disregard any meaningful conversation about the "one regulation" with a mess of argument over "all regulation". Please, help us stop doing that. If you want to talk about any of the other regulations, I would love to have a conversation about them. Just be specific, please.
- dsr_ 10y ago
  Let's assume that they are. What predictions can we make from that assumption, given what happens to other utilities that are closely regulated by the government? - Services would be tightly constrained by regulation. You should see all ISPs offering the same set of services in all locations, with the same bandwidths and guarantees. - Services would be tightly constrained on price: the price for 100Mb/s bidirectional service in Philadelphia should be the same as in Pittsburgh or Punxatawny. - Nobody would care who their ISP was, because the regulated service is about the same everywhere. - All the ISPs would have mandated interconnection exchanges where they would be forced to settle traffic with each other. When they get to defined packet loss rates with any other provider, both sides need to improve their connection. - Prices would change every few years, when the public utility commission approved a rate hike. The ISPs would ask for 8% and get 4% and complain that they were going to go out of business. Same as last time. - ISPs would be very boring stocks, growing slowly and issuing a regular dividend. - The big news this year would be that IPv6 routing was going to change from an optional extra-fee service to a built-in on everyone's bill. Basically, look up the way that the Baby Bells acted between 1982 and 1996.
hackuser 10y ago
I'd love to see some serious information and expert analysis about these kind of claims. How much regulation is there? Is it more or less? Where is it too much, where is it too little, and how do we decide? What outcomes does it produce and for what costs? The talking points, such as those in the parent, are well-known and popular among large business and its advocates, but being often-repeated doesn't make them true (especially for political talking points). Personally, I have had little experience with problematic regulations. Some businesses I work with have to follow them, but the ones I'm aware of seem to protect the public from injury and fraud. Certainly I'm glad my water, air travel, roads, financial system, legal system, etc. are regulated. But neither my personal experience nor the talking points are useful knowledge. It shows how little we know about the subject - and how mindlessly politicized it is - that there is almost no commonly known, serious knowledge about it.
- Kenji 10y ago
  I just look at my Romanian friends. Basically they have 10x more internet speed at 10x less price, just so, despite living in a much poorer country. The reason: It's basically wild west and the state hasn't yet regulated ISPs to death. This is just one of many examples where you see such patterns. Just because my comments fit a narrative doesn't mean I cannot back them up, or they serve special interests of mine.
  - lobster_johnson 10y ago
    That doesn't mean the same will happen if you deregulate the US. Most ISPs are already monopolies. Where would the competitors come from? ISPs in countries like Romania blossomed because many small providers were able to compete with each other from the outset. In the US, the initially fragmented market (the "Baby Bells" etc.) have congealed into just a few major players that have no incentive to compete.
  - outsidetheparty 10y ago
    Alternative explanation: Romania is a comparatively teeny tiny country so the necessary infrastructure costs are a fraction of what they would be here. Or: see the UK and Netherlands, where government regulation improved service by forcing more competition in the broadband market [1], i.e. exactly the opposite of your "regulated to death" claim. In all three of those examples, increased competition seems to have been the real explanation for reduced prices and improved service, not deregulation as you claim. https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/ https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadban...

objectivistbrit 10y ago

No, you are the one who has redefined freedom. Freedom originally meant that you could deal with whoever you wanted on whatever terms both parties could agree on. It didn't mean the government regulating private businesses to ensure some specific outcome. I understand why HN wants net neutrality: the majority here think that ISPs have undeserved control, and so the government needs to step in to ensure a level playing field. Still, if someone advocated "search engine neutrality", arguing that the govt should regulate Google's search results to ensure everyone had a fair chance, there would be uproar. Similarly, if someone argued for "platform neutrality", holding that every startup that offered some kind of API had to register with the gov't to ensure their services were equally available to all others, the insanity would be obvious.

lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
The difference is a question of infrastructure. If your ISP trottles your connection you have maybe one local competitor (doing the same thing) or live without internet. Utilites are treated as public works; imagine if the power company charged higher rates depending on what electronics were used. There simply is no comparison to regulation at a platform level and I wish people would stop using that straw-man every time they rush to defend the poor telecoms and their "freedom".
- metachor 10y ago
  Power companies do charge different rates depending on what electronics are used. Energy utility rate structures are both complex and unique to the individual company, but at a high level different classes of consumer pay different rate plans, such as residential vs. commercial/industrial vs. agricultural, and which is ultimately determined by the type of and quantity of certain electronic devices installed on premise as is normal for that class. With that said, as a residential consumer there is little chance that you could ever legally or physically install one of the devices at your home that would necessitate being charged a CI or agricultural rate. And interestingly enough those rates are all regulated by very heavy weight local/state and federal regulatory commissions.