6 ms·

I've written it before and I'll write it again (despite the massive downvotes from those who want to silence dissent): Title II regulation of the Internet is no

I've written it before and I'll write it again (despite the massive downvotes from those who want to silence dissent): Title II regulation of the Internet is not the net neutrality panacea that many people think it is. That is the same kind of heavy-handed regulation that gave us the sorry copper POTS network we are stuck with today. The free market is the solution, and must be defended against those who want European-style top-down national regulation of what has historically been the most free and vibrant area of economic growth the world has ever seen. The reason the internet grew into what it is today during the 1990s was precisely because it was so free of regulation and governmental control. If the early attempts[1] to regulate the internet had succeeded, HN probably wouldn't exist and none of us would have jobs right now. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act (just one example from memory--there were several federal attempts to censor and tax the Internet in the 1990s)

1_2__3 9y ago
Most of the POTS system is fiber and has been for some time. The "sorry copper POTS network" enabled the future through any number of amazing technologies up to and including SS7 and lots of modern tech. If you're saying NN gets us something as long-lasting, ubiquitous and powerful as the POTS system, sign me up.
- freehunter 9y ago
  Not to mention POTS goes everywhere and provides basically the same service to everyone at roughly the same price nationwide. And it works even if the power is out. If broadband stood still at the speed it's at right now (my not-impressive suburban area is 40-60mbps) but matched the consistency and affordability of POTS nationwide, we would be in a far better place than we are now.
  - BenjiWiebe 9y ago
    It puts a smile on my face every time someone refers to 60Mbps as not impressive... I live in a rural area, that is true, but it isn't that under populated or that far from a city. And we can get 6Mbps tops, unless we go to Verizon and pay per gig. Oh wait, actually Verizon service is pretty terrible here too.
    - freehunter 9y ago
      Yeah I knew some people would say "60mb is really fast" while some others would say "I can't live without 1gig". For more populated areas in the US, 60mbps is pretty average these days, and if we spread that around to everyone equally I think we'd all be better off. My grandparents were on T-Mobile for their Internet access until T-Mobile focused their tower in the opposite direction and they had to switch back to satellite Internet. They lost the ability to reliably Skype with their great-granddaughter, which is an absolute shame.
KZeillmann 9y ago
Sure -- let's say free market is a solution? Free market only works if I have choice. Right now, my only choice for internet service is Comcast. Free market won't do a thing until I have actual choices here.
- jpadkins 9y ago
  and why do you only have comcast as a choice? Government granted monopolies. Void all local contracts with ISPs (cable or telco), and you will have choices.
  - stdgy 9y ago
    Rewind. Why did the government grant monopolies to these companies in the first place? To entice them to invest in their area because nobody else would. Infrastructure isn't software development. It requires billions of dollars of capital investment. That investment isn't going to go to many areas unless it's nearly guaranteed a return, hence the labyrinth of monopolistic guarantees bestowed upon ISPs. It's not clear to me that consumer options would flourish if you were to roll back all ISP related regulations and void existing contracts. I suspect the current system would just become more entrenched.
    - KZeillmann 9y ago
      Not to mention that big-name ISPs like Comcast will litigate their smaller competitors out of existence.
  - Dirlewanger 9y ago
    >you will have choices. No, companies will go with the cheaper route i.e. continue the comfy collusions they have now. You're insane if you think they'll magically start sharing their own infrastructures with each other.
    - jpadkins 9y ago
      no, I expect them to build redundant connections to homes / neighood POPs. Especially for cities that plan well and design for easily pulling new wire through existing conduit. The first build out of fiber to the curb is expensive. 2-N is cheap if you do it right.
pikzen 9y ago
Hi, European here. Do you want to compare access to broadband in ANY of our countries to the US so I can have a laugh?
- jpadkins 9y ago
  http://broadbandcountrydata.law.upenn.edu/the-facts/ http://broadbandcountrydata.law.upenn.edu/the-facts/
  - aphexbr 9y ago
    "Data analyzed for this report reveals, however, that the U.S. led in many broadband metrics in 2011 and 2012." Anything more recent? I can tell you from my experience in the south of Spain that investment and availability in broadband has improved massively since that report was provided (e.g. I personally was struggling to get the full advertised 10Mbps in my area 5 years ago, I've had solid 300Mbps for around €25/month extra for a year now). I wouldn't be surprised if the study took place shortly before fibre and other investment in certain areas really came to fruition. I also see they seem to be hedging things in the summary descriptions (e.g. mentioning cost as a positive on the US side, but then making excuses while they admit that US access is only cheaper at slow speeds), so that doesn't seem particularly convincing.
lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
So there's regulation of the Internet, and regulation of the gatekeepers. Your example is of the former, a straw man I don't think you'll find any in support of; NN is an example of the latter. I find it hilarious that so many people have forgotten why there is such good access to internet in this country in the first place. The US government made a deal with the devil (the telecoms) to run copper to every back assward town and county across the heartland. This has proved to be an awful deal, however, there would be no internet outside of the metro areas if not for the big scary government.
burkaman 9y ago
Why do you think net neutrality is a natural consequence of the free market? It seems like a completely orthogonal concept. It doesn't result in higher profits and it's not really a competitive advantage for ISPs.
hedora 9y ago
Huh? My college roommate ran a little ISP on top of the POTS network back when compuserve, aol, and prodigy were "the internet" for most people in the US. He was just some high school kid with little cash when he started the business, and eventually got acquired by one of the 100's (1000's?) of successful local ISPs that replaced the big walled gardens, and gave average people access to TCP/IP. This was all with "european style top down regulation" of the telcos (which was actually invented and practiced in the US until lobbyists killed it).
MadWombat 9y ago
> The free market is the solution Famous last words. Free market caters to existing major players. Even the notoriously free financial markets are heavily regulated to prevent bigger players squeezing out smaller players. The idea that free market unregulated capitalism is the answer to everything has been shown as wrong many times over.
wvenable 9y ago
> The reason the internet grew into what it is today during the 1990s was precisely because it was so free of regulation and governmental control. And massive government subsidies. In the early 90's, I lived in a region that basically could not get Internet. It was a dark time for me coming from a more urban area. A few years later every small community has been hooked up with broadband -- almost entirely due to government regulation and money.
curun1r 9y ago
The free market is also not the panacea that many people think it is. Broadband is an industry where there is a natural monopoly, which is never good for consumers. Last mile infrastructure just costs too much and you can't have umpteen different companies digging holes in the street and stringing wires. I've said for a while that we could rely on a free market solution to the broadband market with one very large change from the way that things are done now. Last mile infrastructure should be publicly owned and customers should be allowed to choose any provider. Once that's the case, then you can have a truly competitive market that's more likely to give consumers choice. Short of that, heavy regulation is better than allowing monopoly/duopoly players to behave in whatever way they want.
- zzzcpan 9y ago
  "Last mile infrastructure just costs too much and you can't have umpteen different companies digging holes in the street and stringing wires." If you remove all the regulatory overhead last mile is cheap, something on an order of $100 per customer in urban areas.
  - Crye 9y ago
    I understand you just through out a number but you're at least an order of magnitude off. This is an article which is about 7 years old. I can guarantee you the prices have not lowered since then. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/fiber-its-not-all-created-equal/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/fiber-its-not-al...

1_2__3 9y ago

Most of the POTS system is fiber and has been for some time. The "sorry copper POTS network" enabled the future through any number of amazing technologies up to and including SS7 and lots of modern tech. If you're saying NN gets us something as long-lasting, ubiquitous and powerful as the POTS system, sign me up.

freehunter 9y ago
Not to mention POTS goes everywhere and provides basically the same service to everyone at roughly the same price nationwide. And it works even if the power is out. If broadband stood still at the speed it's at right now (my not-impressive suburban area is 40-60mbps) but matched the consistency and affordability of POTS nationwide, we would be in a far better place than we are now.
- BenjiWiebe 9y ago
  It puts a smile on my face every time someone refers to 60Mbps as not impressive... I live in a rural area, that is true, but it isn't that under populated or that far from a city. And we can get 6Mbps tops, unless we go to Verizon and pay per gig. Oh wait, actually Verizon service is pretty terrible here too.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    Yeah I knew some people would say "60mb is really fast" while some others would say "I can't live without 1gig". For more populated areas in the US, 60mbps is pretty average these days, and if we spread that around to everyone equally I think we'd all be better off. My grandparents were on T-Mobile for their Internet access until T-Mobile focused their tower in the opposite direction and they had to switch back to satellite Internet. They lost the ability to reliably Skype with their great-granddaughter, which is an absolute shame.

KZeillmann 9y ago

Sure -- let's say free market is a solution? Free market only works if I have choice. Right now, my only choice for internet service is Comcast. Free market won't do a thing until I have actual choices here.

jpadkins 9y ago
and why do you only have comcast as a choice? Government granted monopolies. Void all local contracts with ISPs (cable or telco), and you will have choices.
- stdgy 9y ago
  Rewind. Why did the government grant monopolies to these companies in the first place? To entice them to invest in their area because nobody else would. Infrastructure isn't software development. It requires billions of dollars of capital investment. That investment isn't going to go to many areas unless it's nearly guaranteed a return, hence the labyrinth of monopolistic guarantees bestowed upon ISPs. It's not clear to me that consumer options would flourish if you were to roll back all ISP related regulations and void existing contracts. I suspect the current system would just become more entrenched.
  - KZeillmann 9y ago
    Not to mention that big-name ISPs like Comcast will litigate their smaller competitors out of existence.
- Dirlewanger 9y ago
  >you will have choices. No, companies will go with the cheaper route i.e. continue the comfy collusions they have now. You're insane if you think they'll magically start sharing their own infrastructures with each other.
  - jpadkins 9y ago
    no, I expect them to build redundant connections to homes / neighood POPs. Especially for cities that plan well and design for easily pulling new wire through existing conduit. The first build out of fiber to the curb is expensive. 2-N is cheap if you do it right.

pikzen 9y ago

Hi, European here. Do you want to compare access to broadband in ANY of our countries to the US so I can have a laugh?

jpadkins 9y ago
http://broadbandcountrydata.law.upenn.edu/the-facts/ http://broadbandcountrydata.law.upenn.edu/the-facts/
- aphexbr 9y ago
  "Data analyzed for this report reveals, however, that the U.S. led in many broadband metrics in 2011 and 2012." Anything more recent? I can tell you from my experience in the south of Spain that investment and availability in broadband has improved massively since that report was provided (e.g. I personally was struggling to get the full advertised 10Mbps in my area 5 years ago, I've had solid 300Mbps for around €25/month extra for a year now). I wouldn't be surprised if the study took place shortly before fibre and other investment in certain areas really came to fruition. I also see they seem to be hedging things in the summary descriptions (e.g. mentioning cost as a positive on the US side, but then making excuses while they admit that US access is only cheaper at slow speeds), so that doesn't seem particularly convincing.

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago

So there's regulation of the Internet, and regulation of the gatekeepers. Your example is of the former, a straw man I don't think you'll find any in support of; NN is an example of the latter. I find it hilarious that so many people have forgotten why there is such good access to internet in this country in the first place. The US government made a deal with the devil (the telecoms) to run copper to every back assward town and county across the heartland. This has proved to be an awful deal, however, there would be no internet outside of the metro areas if not for the big scary government.

burkaman 9y ago

Why do you think net neutrality is a natural consequence of the free market? It seems like a completely orthogonal concept. It doesn't result in higher profits and it's not really a competitive advantage for ISPs.

hedora 9y ago

Huh? My college roommate ran a little ISP on top of the POTS network back when compuserve, aol, and prodigy were "the internet" for most people in the US. He was just some high school kid with little cash when he started the business, and eventually got acquired by one of the 100's (1000's?) of successful local ISPs that replaced the big walled gardens, and gave average people access to TCP/IP. This was all with "european style top down regulation" of the telcos (which was actually invented and practiced in the US until lobbyists killed it).

MadWombat 9y ago

> The free market is the solution Famous last words. Free market caters to existing major players. Even the notoriously free financial markets are heavily regulated to prevent bigger players squeezing out smaller players. The idea that free market unregulated capitalism is the answer to everything has been shown as wrong many times over.

wvenable 9y ago

> The reason the internet grew into what it is today during the 1990s was precisely because it was so free of regulation and governmental control. And massive government subsidies. In the early 90's, I lived in a region that basically could not get Internet. It was a dark time for me coming from a more urban area. A few years later every small community has been hooked up with broadband -- almost entirely due to government regulation and money.

curun1r 9y ago

The free market is also not the panacea that many people think it is. Broadband is an industry where there is a natural monopoly, which is never good for consumers. Last mile infrastructure just costs too much and you can't have umpteen different companies digging holes in the street and stringing wires. I've said for a while that we could rely on a free market solution to the broadband market with one very large change from the way that things are done now. Last mile infrastructure should be publicly owned and customers should be allowed to choose any provider. Once that's the case, then you can have a truly competitive market that's more likely to give consumers choice. Short of that, heavy regulation is better than allowing monopoly/duopoly players to behave in whatever way they want.

zzzcpan 9y ago
"Last mile infrastructure just costs too much and you can't have umpteen different companies digging holes in the street and stringing wires." If you remove all the regulatory overhead last mile is cheap, something on an order of $100 per customer in urban areas.
- Crye 9y ago
  I understand you just through out a number but you're at least an order of magnitude off. This is an article which is about 7 years old. I can guarantee you the prices have not lowered since then. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/fiber-its-not-all-created-equal/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/fiber-its-not-al...