5 ms·

I keep seeing everywhere comments against Net Neutrality using this argument. And saying that it cripples free market, because new ISPs wouldn't be able to comp

by DiThi 9y ago

I keep seeing everywhere comments against Net Neutrality using this argument. And saying that it cripples free market, because new ISPs wouldn't be able to compete having the expense of regulatory compliance. But _nobody_, absolutely no one explained to me _why_ would it cost even a cent to ensure Net Neutrality (that is not part of ensuring a quality service in general). We should ask this more when discussing that argument, because it seems there's a lot of people truly believing this having that notion unchallenged.

betterunix2 9y ago
The net neutrality order from 2015 did more than just mandate network neutrality. It also requires ISPs to keep certain records, possibly beyond their business needs (and other legal mandates). It also requires ISPs to make information available to the public via their own websites, which costs at least a cent ;). Yes, it's all weak and such costs would be covered by just one month of customer bill payment, but ISPs like to complain and Ajit Pai has made a big show of addressing these costs. For example, the FCC will host information about ISP practices for any ISP that finds it too burdensome to have a website of their own. One bit of irony here is that the ISPs have argued that there is too much uncertainty surrounding the Title II regulations. Today the FCC does not impose rate regulation, for example, but maybe tomorrow's FCC will. Of course, now it is becoming clear that the rules will change whenever the presidency changes parties, so if anything it would seem that there is far more regulatory uncertainty with Pai's approach.
- cvsh 9y ago
  >Today the FCC does not impose rate regulation, for example, but maybe tomorrow's FCC will. Of course, now it is becoming clear that the rules will change whenever the presidency changes parties, so if anything it would seem that there is far more regulatory uncertainty with Pai's approach. This is also why the health insurance industry was overwhelmingly opposed to the Republican healthcare plan, why the financial industry was opposed to certain Republican regulation rollbacks, etc. All the infrastructure they'd built to refocus their business around the regulations might now be useless, but probably not, because there's a decent chance the Democrats might recapture the Senate and/or Presidency in 4-8 years. Uncertainty is expensive and exhausting. Businesses are desperate for a compromise that lasts. Drastic and potentially ephemeral GOP regulation-slashing really serves no one except their own donor class -- not even big business, let alone small business and the middle class.
- DiThi 9y ago
  Thanks, you're the first person that explain me the costs. Not totally free but almost, and vastly cheaper than a 10% figure I saw in some comments. Where can I read more information about those requirements without having to read the full law?
twoodfin 9y ago
Comcast sells digital video services for hefty subscription fees to tens of millions of its customers. Those video services presumably use bandwidth that could be used by Google, Netflix or any of a dozen other competitors if the customer preferred. Under Title II, what stops the FCC from mandating that Comcast “open the box” and allow all competitors access to that bandwidth in a neutral fashion? That’s the argument. Title II is just a framework for regulations that could potentially turn ISPs into true “dumb pipes”. While many have convinced themselves that would be great for everyone, there’s not a lot of money in the dumb pipe business. To put it another way: 10 cent SMS messages built a lot of cell towers!
- raverbashing 9y ago
  Still, that's "last mile" bandwidth Owning the network it's much easier to cache at the boundary But apparently it's easier and cheaper to lobby instead of doing the smart thing
  - twoodfin 9y ago
    What about Title II do you think makes boundary caching untouchable by regulators as well? Remember, this is the framework created to bring Ma Bell to heel. Why should Comcast be allowed to build “fast lanes” for their own NBC content and exclude Netflix, just because the delivery vector is an IP cable box instead of an IP WLAN hub?
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      Remember, this is the framework created to bring Ma Bell to heel. Is this irony? In what sense has Ma Bell been brought to heel? Do you mean that ATT and VZN haven't yet merged? Perhaps you mean that neither of them has yet consumed CenturyLink? notes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15756334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15756334
      - libertyEQ 9y ago
        It was the 1930's, and since that time the baby Bells have slowly re-merged. You mentioned CenturyLink (formerly USWest) ans Cincinnati Bell also still exists, as well as some other remnants elsewhere. Many people make the argument the the Communications act of '96 stifled DSL, which pushed data heavy users to cable internet as soon as it was available. Given how things stand, and who is in power, I think it would be best to be pushing for further deregulation in telecom, since that is the argument they are making. They need to put up or shut up.
drieddust 9y ago
Unregulated Capitalism in the very reason monopolies are created. Founder of Capitalism favoured an economy where a lot of small companies competed together to the benefit of consumers. He also recommended regulations where natural monopolies arise due to limited supply. As an example, he recommended heavy taxes on rent seeking[1]. This is a case of American Capitalism taken to its logically conclusion where any regulation makes it anti competitive. American psyche is so attuned to "Free Market" that anything lazy argument will be invoked. On the contrary we have Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) in India which has done wonders for us. Our market is highly regulated, yet we enjoy cheapest ISP services. We have also favoured Net Neutrality by opposing Facebook[2] when they came knocking on our door and now its part of our regulations after a year long deliberation [3]. [1] https://www.prosper.org.au/about/geoists-in-history/adam-smith-on-the-rentier/ https://www.prosper.org.au/about/geoists-in-history/adam-smi... [2] http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/TRAI-rules-in-favour-of-Net-neutrality/article14068029.ece http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/TRAI-ru... [3] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/trai-differential-data-pricing-regulations-net-neutrality/1/1104985.html http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/trai-differential-data-pr...
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > We have also favoured Net Neutrality by opposing Facebook[2] Interesting, wonder if Indians see it as a tiny bit ironic that Facebook then turns around and campaigns for net neutrality is US. Once were in the position to be the ISP (effectively), they had no issue taking Verizon's side.
  - drieddust 9y ago
    Companies will be opportunistic. OT but I am not sure why AntiTrust is not invoked against Facebook. They don't have any competition and have done things which can be considered abuse of position.
    - eropple 9y ago
      They have lots of competition. Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat (especially among younger sets), etc. They don't have vertically-integrated competition, granted, but they have enough competition to point at to be left alone.

by DiThi 9y ago

betterunix2 9y ago

The net neutrality order from 2015 did more than just mandate network neutrality. It also requires ISPs to keep certain records, possibly beyond their business needs (and other legal mandates). It also requires ISPs to make information available to the public via their own websites, which costs at least a cent ;). Yes, it's all weak and such costs would be covered by just one month of customer bill payment, but ISPs like to complain and Ajit Pai has made a big show of addressing these costs. For example, the FCC will host information about ISP practices for any ISP that finds it too burdensome to have a website of their own. One bit of irony here is that the ISPs have argued that there is too much uncertainty surrounding the Title II regulations. Today the FCC does not impose rate regulation, for example, but maybe tomorrow's FCC will. Of course, now it is becoming clear that the rules will change whenever the presidency changes parties, so if anything it would seem that there is far more regulatory uncertainty with Pai's approach.

cvsh 9y ago
>Today the FCC does not impose rate regulation, for example, but maybe tomorrow's FCC will. Of course, now it is becoming clear that the rules will change whenever the presidency changes parties, so if anything it would seem that there is far more regulatory uncertainty with Pai's approach. This is also why the health insurance industry was overwhelmingly opposed to the Republican healthcare plan, why the financial industry was opposed to certain Republican regulation rollbacks, etc. All the infrastructure they'd built to refocus their business around the regulations might now be useless, but probably not, because there's a decent chance the Democrats might recapture the Senate and/or Presidency in 4-8 years. Uncertainty is expensive and exhausting. Businesses are desperate for a compromise that lasts. Drastic and potentially ephemeral GOP regulation-slashing really serves no one except their own donor class -- not even big business, let alone small business and the middle class.
DiThi 9y ago
Thanks, you're the first person that explain me the costs. Not totally free but almost, and vastly cheaper than a 10% figure I saw in some comments. Where can I read more information about those requirements without having to read the full law?

twoodfin 9y ago

Comcast sells digital video services for hefty subscription fees to tens of millions of its customers. Those video services presumably use bandwidth that could be used by Google, Netflix or any of a dozen other competitors if the customer preferred. Under Title II, what stops the FCC from mandating that Comcast “open the box” and allow all competitors access to that bandwidth in a neutral fashion? That’s the argument. Title II is just a framework for regulations that could potentially turn ISPs into true “dumb pipes”. While many have convinced themselves that would be great for everyone, there’s not a lot of money in the dumb pipe business. To put it another way: 10 cent SMS messages built a lot of cell towers!

raverbashing 9y ago
Still, that's "last mile" bandwidth Owning the network it's much easier to cache at the boundary But apparently it's easier and cheaper to lobby instead of doing the smart thing
- twoodfin 9y ago
  What about Title II do you think makes boundary caching untouchable by regulators as well? Remember, this is the framework created to bring Ma Bell to heel. Why should Comcast be allowed to build “fast lanes” for their own NBC content and exclude Netflix, just because the delivery vector is an IP cable box instead of an IP WLAN hub?
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    Remember, this is the framework created to bring Ma Bell to heel. Is this irony? In what sense has Ma Bell been brought to heel? Do you mean that ATT and VZN haven't yet merged? Perhaps you mean that neither of them has yet consumed CenturyLink? notes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15756334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15756334
    - libertyEQ 9y ago
      It was the 1930's, and since that time the baby Bells have slowly re-merged. You mentioned CenturyLink (formerly USWest) ans Cincinnati Bell also still exists, as well as some other remnants elsewhere. Many people make the argument the the Communications act of '96 stifled DSL, which pushed data heavy users to cable internet as soon as it was available. Given how things stand, and who is in power, I think it would be best to be pushing for further deregulation in telecom, since that is the argument they are making. They need to put up or shut up.

drieddust 9y ago

Unregulated Capitalism in the very reason monopolies are created. Founder of Capitalism favoured an economy where a lot of small companies competed together to the benefit of consumers. He also recommended regulations where natural monopolies arise due to limited supply. As an example, he recommended heavy taxes on rent seeking[1]. This is a case of American Capitalism taken to its logically conclusion where any regulation makes it anti competitive. American psyche is so attuned to "Free Market" that anything lazy argument will be invoked. On the contrary we have Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) in India which has done wonders for us. Our market is highly regulated, yet we enjoy cheapest ISP services. We have also favoured Net Neutrality by opposing Facebook[2] when they came knocking on our door and now its part of our regulations after a year long deliberation [3]. [1] https://www.prosper.org.au/about/geoists-in-history/adam-smith-on-the-rentier/ https://www.prosper.org.au/about/geoists-in-history/adam-smi... [2] http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/TRAI-rules-in-favour-of-Net-neutrality/article14068029.ece http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/TRAI-ru... [3] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/trai-differential-data-pricing-regulations-net-neutrality/1/1104985.html http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/trai-differential-data-pr...

rdtsc 9y ago
> We have also favoured Net Neutrality by opposing Facebook[2] Interesting, wonder if Indians see it as a tiny bit ironic that Facebook then turns around and campaigns for net neutrality is US. Once were in the position to be the ISP (effectively), they had no issue taking Verizon's side.
- drieddust 9y ago
  Companies will be opportunistic. OT but I am not sure why AntiTrust is not invoked against Facebook. They don't have any competition and have done things which can be considered abuse of position.
  - eropple 9y ago
    They have lots of competition. Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat (especially among younger sets), etc. They don't have vertically-integrated competition, granted, but they have enough competition to point at to be left alone.