7 ms·

I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations. For ISPs, the council i

by ethbro 9y ago

I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations. For ISPs, the council is that they should be regulated (e.g. net neutrality, data privacy). For Facebook, Google, et al. the council is that they shouldn't be regulated (e.g. EU GDPR). I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately falls down to "ISPs are unpopular, web companies are popular." When it comes down to it, regulation promoting consumer privacy, price and TOS transparency, and access by new entrants to the market is almost always beneficial... to the consumer. Because let's not kid ourselves that Facebook or Google are fundamentally different than someone who owns the last mile of your network connectivity. Their current behavior might be (mostly) benevolent, but the centralization they've engineered means if they want to maximize monetization tomorrow...

saagarjha 9y ago
> For Facebook, Google, et al. the council is that they shouldn't be regulated (e.g. EU GDPR). GDPR is regulation, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
- ethbro 9y ago
  And HN comments haven't trended neutral to critical on GDPR?
  - saagarjha 9y ago
    Not in my experience. Most comments I've seen laud it for providing protections for user privacy.
  - grandmczeb 9y ago
    You see what you want to see. FWIW I think there have been more positive comments than negative.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    To expand on the other user, most of the negative gdpr commentary I've seen here has been that it either doesn't do enough, is confusing or vague, or will further entrench the big guys. None of those are particularly "we shouldn't regulate the big guys", but more of a "I have specific issues with this regulation". I expect that there would be some similar sentiment if we were discussing a specific piece of isp regulating legislation.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      I was kind of surprised. My impression was that there was usually at least one highly voted comment stating (essentially), "Any regulation will harm startups, so there should be no regulation." Admittedly, there are other, pro viewpoints expressed, but my takeaway is that there's a sizable libertarian contingent which would rather absolutely have freedom in action than freedom in opportunity. Which seems... short-sighted.
  - 928jf0923 9y ago
    I don't know, have they? You're asking questions like you're writing headlines for a clickbait rag.
TAForObvReasons 9y ago
The difference, if you want an honest answer, is that many HN denizens have worked or are currently working for Google or FB, or they hope that their startups will eventually be acquired by one of them. When Comcast gets in the game of providing exits for numerous startups, then we may start to see a shift in HN sentiment.
sangnoir 9y ago
> I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately falls down to "ISPs are unpopular, web companies are popular." To paraphrase a (disputed) John Steinback quote, "HNers see themselves as temporarily embarrassed founders of the next Google or Facebook". There's vicariousness to the support, in addition to those with actual employment links past, present, or future (hopefully).
Benjamin_Dobell 9y ago
Given the conversation is regarding the US, the difference is obvious. Users choose to use Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft or whichever "Big Web" services they want. However, many people in US have absolutely zero choice regarding their ISP, because ISPs have monopolies in the regions they serve, there's no competition. It's inherently not a free market.
- smsm42 9y ago
  You can choose to post on Facebook. But you don't choose to be tracked by Facebook or Google - that happens whether you want it or not. I don't think people are as much worried about what they explicitly share as about what information gets collected without their knowledge.
- maxsilver 9y ago
  > Users chose to use Facebook I'd argue the opposite. Users can't not choose to use Facebook. Even if you have never had a Facebook account, even if you have never touched a smartphone in your entire life, even if you intentionally try to eradicate Facebook from your life -- Facebook still has a profile on you, full of data about you, from other people in your life who do use Facebook. Facebook isn't Facebook.com. Facebook is basically a modern day Equifax, that just happens to run a few apps on the side.
  - Benjamin_Dobell 9y ago
    In general it's near impossible to stop third-parties collecting information about you. I'm by no means advocating such business practices! However, someone can always ask your friends for your phone number or home address; if your friends are stupid enough to give it up. You do however have some degree of control here, choose your friends, and choose what you reveal to them. However, your ISPs have the capability to control what you see and do, and potentially snoop on your activity, including private information that you'd never reveal to a friend. You can't say "Hey, that's not cool, I'll use a provider that doesn't do that", because in your area such a provider may simply not exist. I recognize not associating with anyone who uses Facebook is impractical; however ISPs have the potential to do so much more damage than Facebook (even if they're not doing so right now).
928jf0923 9y ago
So long as you acknowledge that's an intuitive opinion on your part, sure. I'd be perfectly happy to see regulation around Facebook and Google's use of data they've ALREADY COLLECTED under agreement. An ISP is looking to manipulate willy-nilly (that is, in whichever direction the financial outlook looks best from their perspective). This is more concerning to me for what should be obvious reason. I don't have a Facebook, and don't use Google except for email and occasionally. ISPs action impact all users. Facebook and Google mostly impacts the idiots that signed up with them.
smsm42 9y ago
ISPs sell a commodity. I have yet to see a popular commodity supplier - steel companies, oil companies, coal companies, insurance companies, big retail stores... All have been vilified.
- drawkbox 9y ago
  > ISPs sell a commodity. Agreed, you might even say ISPs/networks are a utility now, though ISPs seem to not think that. The difference here is that the ISP utility/commodity is not only a local monopoly with false competition but they are trying to leverage that trusted position to sell you other things and wants to be an ad network with your private data. Your oil/steel/water company isn't trying to get you to sign up to HBO or some discounted bundle, build an ad network from your data or limiting how much or which way you can use your oil/steel/water. ISPs could rapidly expand their network and build products people want on top of it leveraging that new capability separate from the ISP on web/mobile/media and compete in the street rather than leveraging their trusted position, but they won't because they are in the bribing/milking it/monopoly laziness phase not the competitive innovative phase. ISPs resemble those companies that innovated, got top market position then just turned to metrics not continuing to innovate, more like Microsoft around 2006 than Amazon today.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    ISPs know they're a commodity, which is why everything they're doing is a struggle to avoid that trap. I guess I look at ISPs as acting in their own best interest rather than out of malice. Essentially every initiative they've tried for the last few decades comes straight from HBR [1]. They aren't bad ideas, they're just almost all anti-consumer. And their options for innovation are limited (as publicly traded companies). The thing we (HN) would like ("faster internet for cheaper") is the most expensive for them to build. So naturally they gravitate towards VOIP or mobile content, because those things produce better ROI. The only way we'd get the ISPs we want is if they were prohibited from being anything other than utilities. Although the irony there is that they'd likely find it difficult to access the necessary capital to build super fast networks. (Or in other words, the blood tracking money subsidizes faster internet connections) [1] https://hbr.org/2007/12/how-to-avoid-the-commodity-tra https://hbr.org/2007/12/how-to-avoid-the-commodity-tra
drawkbox 9y ago
> I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately falls down to "ISPs are unpopular, web companies are popular." A cogent argument: ISPs are your gateway to the internet you can't route around and web/mobile/content companies are built on top and can be routed around. ISPs could build products people want instead of regulatory capturing their way into the game. ISPs aren't innovating through products, they are lobbying, bribing and legislating their way in. They should go more the direction of Hulu like Comcast did rather than trying to slow down innovation, nothing is stopping ISPs from building web/mobile properties that people want to use rather than fighting against them. ISPs should spend more money on expanding networks not data caps, slow lanes and lobbying to retain their local monopolies. ISPs should get out of the business if they don't want to be neutral networks who protect private data as the steward of your gateway to the network, they want to be content companies and ad/data collectors. ISPs should basically be focused on what their customers want, like web companies have to do to compete, rather than what the company wants solely. Being local monopolies has gone to their head and they are abusing the position/trust. Noone but the ISPs wanted their ISP selling their private data, removing neutral network protections, adding data caps, slowing down expansions, adding slow lanes for milking it. Google Fiber is an ISP, they should also be neutral and not selling data. ISPs are the gatway to the network and privacy is important as well as innovations to allow new types of web/mobile/media companies, right now they are trying to limit that. When ISPs are focused again on being a neutral network that protects your trust and provides competitive speeds with the world, then they will be liked again. Web companies aren't innocent but they aren't your gateway to the network. Ultimately, all large companies have turned predatory in the US. We are against bullying but not by large corps apparently. What is more respectable, innovative products that you want to use or products you are forced to use through authority and mini monopolies? You'll find your answer.
- ethbro 9y ago
  > ISPs are your gateway to the internet you can't route around and web/mobile/content companies are built on top and can be routed around. We disagree on a core premise then. I contend that at scale, web companies can't be routed around. At minimum, when I have to run blacklist filters to avoid my third party web traffic ending up logged on Google or Facebook servers, something is wrong. When the majority of new tech is being acquhired and integrated into existing platforms (e.g. WhatsApp & Google Docs), something is wrong. Your conclusion sums up my thoughts as well. > What is more respectable, innovative products that you want to use or products you are forced to use through authority and mini monopolies?
joe_the_user 9y ago
I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations. Technically, "Big web" would be perhaps a structural oligopoly [1] or you could say the market has monopolistic competition[2]. they're protected by the network effect, they provide unique products that are hard to duplicate. They are not actual monopolies as economists define them (and not really monopolies in the popular understanding either). But ISPs are straight, government-granted monopolies [3]. Such companies have essentially one incentive, be good at influencing regulators and legislators. Glibly equating these market structures distorts the situation. As to why ISPs should be regulated in the name of neutrality and privacy? Well, they already are highly regulated. They are creations of regulation. The public damn well should get something out of that regulation, especially, the regulation is all about ameliorating the abusive situation their (actual, not pseudo) monopoly position invites. [1] http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Oligopoly.html http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Oligopol... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly
- ethbro 9y ago
  So your contention is that structural oligopolies (or markets with monopolistic competition) should not be regulated? I'd be curious to know why.
  - root_axis 9y ago
    Why should they be regulated? They provide a popular, non-essential product for free. What threat are we protecting the consumer from in the name of this regulation? Consumers are free to visit any competitor site with identical ease of accessibility and competitors have very few barriers to entry (though this trend is slowly changing, e.g. in wireless land where a lack of net-netruality has enabled cell phone providers to harm competition by offering free data-transfer for partnered services like Spotify. A start-up will never be able to compete because their potential customers will pay streaming data fees to use their service or pay nothing to stick with the established incumbent.
Kalium 9y ago
> I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately falls down to "ISPs are unpopular, web companies are popular." The natural, physical costs to creating an ISP creates a ready parallel to other, established natural monopolies. Electrical and water suppliers spring readily to mind. Big Web companies do not have the same natural barriers to entry, which suggests that other models may be available.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
At this point people need an ISP. They do not, however, need Google|Netflix|Facebook, etc.
1gzn8UgmOhQrr93 9y ago
Apples meet oranges. "Net neutrality" is a line in the sand, not a goal. Actual net neutrality would make their ToS clauses regarding webservers on consumer connections, invalid. IF they did allow this, people could have better choices to route around Google, Amazon, etc. Business class connections can be advertised where not available within a certain mileage of service. This harms the middle classes' ability to offset costs using assets by restricting business models that distribute compute power such as European companies that use compute to heat water. Fears of malicious activity and spam are already covered under other laws such as the can spam act and CFAA. -- The ISPs created their own problems -- A webserver can exist without a public good but not publicly without the ISP. The ISPs require many layers of PUBLIC easements and PUBLIC airwaves. Both use water and electricity. Electricity in 1931-1934 was spoken of in a similar way, notably by Hoover(Against). The ISP is a foundation, the requested server is the roof. Satellite ISPs harm the rights of landlords with an FTC exemption for sat dishes https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/installing-consumer-owned-antennas-and-satellite-dishes https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/installing-consumer-own... . ISPs propagated due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone , yet now setup cable modems in a similar way. In 1996 people warned about this after the ISPs abused the NSF as a tier 1 network, never paying their bills. Then around 2000, Lessig released "The End of End to End" and everyone crapped on him and the ISPs said that would never happen. It did. The point is that in terms of timeframe, scope of utilized public resources, and tiers of broken promises... they aren't comparable but both should be regulated for different reasons. An ISP fighting muni broadband is horrible and Google pretending to be a newspaper is also horrible. These however are not the same things or even the same layer of things.
woolvalley 9y ago
I think most people are fine with the GDPR applying to large companies. The biggest contention with the GDPR is it applying to small companies, because the amount of work to comply with it costs a lot. And the penalties being scaled in a way that only makes sense to large tech companies. TBH, small under 10 engineer companies are are rarely privacy threats. And Sue's maid service who uses excel spreadsheets to track their business is not a privacy risk either.
- Gigablah 9y ago
  No, I am not fine with this. I don't care if a company has 10 engineers or 50 (hi WhatsApp) or 10,000. The number of engineers has no relation to how many users are exposed to privacy risk. After all, one single developer can make a popular app that reaches millions. (If you want an example, the Muslim Pro app has over 40 million downloads and is made by a team of less than 5).

by ethbro 9y ago

saagarjha 9y ago

> For Facebook, Google, et al. the council is that they shouldn't be regulated (e.g. EU GDPR). GDPR is regulation, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

ethbro 9y ago
And HN comments haven't trended neutral to critical on GDPR?
- saagarjha 9y ago
  Not in my experience. Most comments I've seen laud it for providing protections for user privacy.
- grandmczeb 9y ago
  You see what you want to see. FWIW I think there have been more positive comments than negative.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  To expand on the other user, most of the negative gdpr commentary I've seen here has been that it either doesn't do enough, is confusing or vague, or will further entrench the big guys. None of those are particularly "we shouldn't regulate the big guys", but more of a "I have specific issues with this regulation". I expect that there would be some similar sentiment if we were discussing a specific piece of isp regulating legislation.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I was kind of surprised. My impression was that there was usually at least one highly voted comment stating (essentially), "Any regulation will harm startups, so there should be no regulation." Admittedly, there are other, pro viewpoints expressed, but my takeaway is that there's a sizable libertarian contingent which would rather absolutely have freedom in action than freedom in opportunity. Which seems... short-sighted.
- 928jf0923 9y ago
  I don't know, have they? You're asking questions like you're writing headlines for a clickbait rag.

TAForObvReasons 9y ago

The difference, if you want an honest answer, is that many HN denizens have worked or are currently working for Google or FB, or they hope that their startups will eventually be acquired by one of them. When Comcast gets in the game of providing exits for numerous startups, then we may start to see a shift in HN sentiment.

sangnoir 9y ago

> I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately falls down to "ISPs are unpopular, web companies are popular." To paraphrase a (disputed) John Steinback quote, "HNers see themselves as temporarily embarrassed founders of the next Google or Facebook". There's vicariousness to the support, in addition to those with actual employment links past, present, or future (hopefully).

Benjamin_Dobell 9y ago

Given the conversation is regarding the US, the difference is obvious. Users choose to use Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft or whichever "Big Web" services they want. However, many people in US have absolutely zero choice regarding their ISP, because ISPs have monopolies in the regions they serve, there's no competition. It's inherently not a free market.

smsm42 9y ago
You can choose to post on Facebook. But you don't choose to be tracked by Facebook or Google - that happens whether you want it or not. I don't think people are as much worried about what they explicitly share as about what information gets collected without their knowledge.
maxsilver 9y ago
> Users chose to use Facebook I'd argue the opposite. Users can't not choose to use Facebook. Even if you have never had a Facebook account, even if you have never touched a smartphone in your entire life, even if you intentionally try to eradicate Facebook from your life -- Facebook still has a profile on you, full of data about you, from other people in your life who do use Facebook. Facebook isn't Facebook.com. Facebook is basically a modern day Equifax, that just happens to run a few apps on the side.
- Benjamin_Dobell 9y ago
  In general it's near impossible to stop third-parties collecting information about you. I'm by no means advocating such business practices! However, someone can always ask your friends for your phone number or home address; if your friends are stupid enough to give it up. You do however have some degree of control here, choose your friends, and choose what you reveal to them. However, your ISPs have the capability to control what you see and do, and potentially snoop on your activity, including private information that you'd never reveal to a friend. You can't say "Hey, that's not cool, I'll use a provider that doesn't do that", because in your area such a provider may simply not exist. I recognize not associating with anyone who uses Facebook is impractical; however ISPs have the potential to do so much more damage than Facebook (even if they're not doing so right now).

928jf0923 9y ago

So long as you acknowledge that's an intuitive opinion on your part, sure. I'd be perfectly happy to see regulation around Facebook and Google's use of data they've ALREADY COLLECTED under agreement. An ISP is looking to manipulate willy-nilly (that is, in whichever direction the financial outlook looks best from their perspective). This is more concerning to me for what should be obvious reason. I don't have a Facebook, and don't use Google except for email and occasionally. ISPs action impact all users. Facebook and Google mostly impacts the idiots that signed up with them.

smsm42 9y ago

ISPs sell a commodity. I have yet to see a popular commodity supplier - steel companies, oil companies, coal companies, insurance companies, big retail stores... All have been vilified.

drawkbox 9y ago
> ISPs sell a commodity. Agreed, you might even say ISPs/networks are a utility now, though ISPs seem to not think that. The difference here is that the ISP utility/commodity is not only a local monopoly with false competition but they are trying to leverage that trusted position to sell you other things and wants to be an ad network with your private data. Your oil/steel/water company isn't trying to get you to sign up to HBO or some discounted bundle, build an ad network from your data or limiting how much or which way you can use your oil/steel/water. ISPs could rapidly expand their network and build products people want on top of it leveraging that new capability separate from the ISP on web/mobile/media and compete in the street rather than leveraging their trusted position, but they won't because they are in the bribing/milking it/monopoly laziness phase not the competitive innovative phase. ISPs resemble those companies that innovated, got top market position then just turned to metrics not continuing to innovate, more like Microsoft around 2006 than Amazon today.
- ethbro 9y ago
  ISPs know they're a commodity, which is why everything they're doing is a struggle to avoid that trap. I guess I look at ISPs as acting in their own best interest rather than out of malice. Essentially every initiative they've tried for the last few decades comes straight from HBR [1]. They aren't bad ideas, they're just almost all anti-consumer. And their options for innovation are limited (as publicly traded companies). The thing we (HN) would like ("faster internet for cheaper") is the most expensive for them to build. So naturally they gravitate towards VOIP or mobile content, because those things produce better ROI. The only way we'd get the ISPs we want is if they were prohibited from being anything other than utilities. Although the irony there is that they'd likely find it difficult to access the necessary capital to build super fast networks. (Or in other words, the blood tracking money subsidizes faster internet connections) [1] https://hbr.org/2007/12/how-to-avoid-the-commodity-tra https://hbr.org/2007/12/how-to-avoid-the-commodity-tra

drawkbox 9y ago

> I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately falls down to "ISPs are unpopular, web companies are popular." A cogent argument: ISPs are your gateway to the internet you can't route around and web/mobile/content companies are built on top and can be routed around. ISPs could build products people want instead of regulatory capturing their way into the game. ISPs aren't innovating through products, they are lobbying, bribing and legislating their way in. They should go more the direction of Hulu like Comcast did rather than trying to slow down innovation, nothing is stopping ISPs from building web/mobile properties that people want to use rather than fighting against them. ISPs should spend more money on expanding networks not data caps, slow lanes and lobbying to retain their local monopolies. ISPs should get out of the business if they don't want to be neutral networks who protect private data as the steward of your gateway to the network, they want to be content companies and ad/data collectors. ISPs should basically be focused on what their customers want, like web companies have to do to compete, rather than what the company wants solely. Being local monopolies has gone to their head and they are abusing the position/trust. Noone but the ISPs wanted their ISP selling their private data, removing neutral network protections, adding data caps, slowing down expansions, adding slow lanes for milking it. Google Fiber is an ISP, they should also be neutral and not selling data. ISPs are the gatway to the network and privacy is important as well as innovations to allow new types of web/mobile/media companies, right now they are trying to limit that. When ISPs are focused again on being a neutral network that protects your trust and provides competitive speeds with the world, then they will be liked again. Web companies aren't innocent but they aren't your gateway to the network. Ultimately, all large companies have turned predatory in the US. We are against bullying but not by large corps apparently. What is more respectable, innovative products that you want to use or products you are forced to use through authority and mini monopolies? You'll find your answer.

ethbro 9y ago
> ISPs are your gateway to the internet you can't route around and web/mobile/content companies are built on top and can be routed around. We disagree on a core premise then. I contend that at scale, web companies can't be routed around. At minimum, when I have to run blacklist filters to avoid my third party web traffic ending up logged on Google or Facebook servers, something is wrong. When the majority of new tech is being acquhired and integrated into existing platforms (e.g. WhatsApp & Google Docs), something is wrong. Your conclusion sums up my thoughts as well. > What is more respectable, innovative products that you want to use or products you are forced to use through authority and mini monopolies?

joe_the_user 9y ago

I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations. Technically, "Big web" would be perhaps a structural oligopoly [1] or you could say the market has monopolistic competition[2]. they're protected by the network effect, they provide unique products that are hard to duplicate. They are not actual monopolies as economists define them (and not really monopolies in the popular understanding either). But ISPs are straight, government-granted monopolies [3]. Such companies have essentially one incentive, be good at influencing regulators and legislators. Glibly equating these market structures distorts the situation. As to why ISPs should be regulated in the name of neutrality and privacy? Well, they already are highly regulated. They are creations of regulation. The public damn well should get something out of that regulation, especially, the regulation is all about ameliorating the abusive situation their (actual, not pseudo) monopoly position invites. [1] http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Oligopoly.html http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Oligopol... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly

ethbro 9y ago
So your contention is that structural oligopolies (or markets with monopolistic competition) should not be regulated? I'd be curious to know why.
- root_axis 9y ago
  Why should they be regulated? They provide a popular, non-essential product for free. What threat are we protecting the consumer from in the name of this regulation? Consumers are free to visit any competitor site with identical ease of accessibility and competitors have very few barriers to entry (though this trend is slowly changing, e.g. in wireless land where a lack of net-netruality has enabled cell phone providers to harm competition by offering free data-transfer for partnered services like Spotify. A start-up will never be able to compete because their potential customers will pay streaming data fees to use their service or pay nothing to stick with the established incumbent.

Kalium 9y ago

> I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately falls down to "ISPs are unpopular, web companies are popular." The natural, physical costs to creating an ISP creates a ready parallel to other, established natural monopolies. Electrical and water suppliers spring readily to mind. Big Web companies do not have the same natural barriers to entry, which suggests that other models may be available.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

At this point people need an ISP. They do not, however, need Google|Netflix|Facebook, etc.

1gzn8UgmOhQrr93 9y ago

Apples meet oranges. "Net neutrality" is a line in the sand, not a goal. Actual net neutrality would make their ToS clauses regarding webservers on consumer connections, invalid. IF they did allow this, people could have better choices to route around Google, Amazon, etc. Business class connections can be advertised where not available within a certain mileage of service. This harms the middle classes' ability to offset costs using assets by restricting business models that distribute compute power such as European companies that use compute to heat water. Fears of malicious activity and spam are already covered under other laws such as the can spam act and CFAA. -- The ISPs created their own problems -- A webserver can exist without a public good but not publicly without the ISP. The ISPs require many layers of PUBLIC easements and PUBLIC airwaves. Both use water and electricity. Electricity in 1931-1934 was spoken of in a similar way, notably by Hoover(Against). The ISP is a foundation, the requested server is the roof. Satellite ISPs harm the rights of landlords with an FTC exemption for sat dishes https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/installing-consumer-owned-antennas-and-satellite-dishes https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/installing-consumer-own... . ISPs propagated due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone , yet now setup cable modems in a similar way. In 1996 people warned about this after the ISPs abused the NSF as a tier 1 network, never paying their bills. Then around 2000, Lessig released "The End of End to End" and everyone crapped on him and the ISPs said that would never happen. It did. The point is that in terms of timeframe, scope of utilized public resources, and tiers of broken promises... they aren't comparable but both should be regulated for different reasons. An ISP fighting muni broadband is horrible and Google pretending to be a newspaper is also horrible. These however are not the same things or even the same layer of things.

woolvalley 9y ago

I think most people are fine with the GDPR applying to large companies. The biggest contention with the GDPR is it applying to small companies, because the amount of work to comply with it costs a lot. And the penalties being scaled in a way that only makes sense to large tech companies. TBH, small under 10 engineer companies are are rarely privacy threats. And Sue's maid service who uses excel spreadsheets to track their business is not a privacy risk either.

Gigablah 9y ago
No, I am not fine with this. I don't care if a company has 10 engineers or 50 (hi WhatsApp) or 10,000. The number of engineers has no relation to how many users are exposed to privacy risk. After all, one single developer can make a popular app that reaches millions. (If you want an example, the Muslim Pro app has over 40 million downloads and is made by a team of less than 5).