3 ms·

You can't separate NN from being government control of the internet. Even if the government made some bad deals with ISPs isn't really relevant. And you can try

You can't separate NN from being government control of the internet. Even if the government made some bad deals with ISPs isn't really relevant. And you can try to do mental gymnastics to get around it, but what NN supporters basically say is, "the companies that provide our access the internet can't be trusted to act in the best interest of the consumer, so we need the government to tell them how to do their job". And the same thinking has led to GDPR and FOSTA, and to ignore that is to ignore a pretty sad change in people's opinion: the government is now more trustworthy than tech companies in protecting people's use of the internet. And maybe sadder is that this new thinking is probably warranted, but let's not make excuses. Warranted or not, NN needs to be called out for what it is.

sp332 8y ago
The internet has always been controlled by the government from day 1. And while you may wish to work toward a more independent net, wishing won't make it so overnight. We've go to do what we can with what we've got. Local governments make deals with ISPs to get coverage to a certain % of the population in exchange for exclusivity. Adding NN to the deal is just negotiating terms in an existing agreement. If we had a free-r market or some competition that might be a better way to get what we want, but we don't.
- briandear 8y ago
  > If we had a freeR market or some competition that might be a better way to get what we want, but we don't. So why aren’t we fighting for that? My problem with NN is not the idea, but the pro-government politics of those so loudly supporting it. I trust free markets far more than I trust governments. If Nancy Pelosi or Maxine Waters were in charge of American internet — I find that pretty horrifying.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > So why aren’t we fighting for that? Because it is an inherently unstable equilibrium. Having two communication networks (of the same level of service, so this does not apply to adding a next-generation network with far higher bandwidth than the exiting network) is as economically sensible as having two power grids or two competing sewer pipes: It necessarily almost doubles the costs (because what dominates the costs is laying the cables, not buying the uplink). A link that is unused because the house is using the competitor's network still has nearly the same costs for the network owner as if the house were using their network. Which means the best strategy for the established network is to undercut the new competitor in order to kill it. The marginal costs of connecting a customer are minimal, while losing too many customers to the competition would allow them to do the same thing to you. That's why people generally wouldn't invest in such a network in the first place. Competition works at the backbone level, as there is enough traffic overall to fill the pipes of multiple competitors. But last-mile networks consist of links that are either used and paid for, or unused with no option to sell the capacity to somebody else, so there is a natural tendency towards a monopoly (which is also in a way in the interest of the customer: Building two networks necessarily doubles the cost, which ultimately the customers have to pay for). Also, they are in charge of the American internet anyway. One law regulating some aspect of the internet does not in any way change how much power people have over some other aspect. If people can make a law banning hacker news, they can do so without NN regulation existing beforehand.
lern_too_spel 8y ago
The Internet was a government network, fully controlled by the government until the transit links were privatized. Once that happened, it took government-granted monopolies to connect ordinary people to it. The fact is that the Internet has been government regulated since day one and deregulating it without a plan in place to ensure the deregulation goes well for the users of the Internet is sheer lunacy, especially since the ISPs have already shown what they plan to do.
KozmoNau7 8y ago
>"the government is now more trustworthy than tech companies in protecting people's use of the internet." Yes, it absolutely is! Just like other basic utilities, such as water, power and sewers. I wouldn't trust private companies with those services, either.

sp332 8y ago

The internet has always been controlled by the government from day 1. And while you may wish to work toward a more independent net, wishing won't make it so overnight. We've go to do what we can with what we've got. Local governments make deals with ISPs to get coverage to a certain % of the population in exchange for exclusivity. Adding NN to the deal is just negotiating terms in an existing agreement. If we had a free-r market or some competition that might be a better way to get what we want, but we don't.

briandear 8y ago
> If we had a freeR market or some competition that might be a better way to get what we want, but we don't. So why aren’t we fighting for that? My problem with NN is not the idea, but the pro-government politics of those so loudly supporting it. I trust free markets far more than I trust governments. If Nancy Pelosi or Maxine Waters were in charge of American internet — I find that pretty horrifying.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > So why aren’t we fighting for that? Because it is an inherently unstable equilibrium. Having two communication networks (of the same level of service, so this does not apply to adding a next-generation network with far higher bandwidth than the exiting network) is as economically sensible as having two power grids or two competing sewer pipes: It necessarily almost doubles the costs (because what dominates the costs is laying the cables, not buying the uplink). A link that is unused because the house is using the competitor's network still has nearly the same costs for the network owner as if the house were using their network. Which means the best strategy for the established network is to undercut the new competitor in order to kill it. The marginal costs of connecting a customer are minimal, while losing too many customers to the competition would allow them to do the same thing to you. That's why people generally wouldn't invest in such a network in the first place. Competition works at the backbone level, as there is enough traffic overall to fill the pipes of multiple competitors. But last-mile networks consist of links that are either used and paid for, or unused with no option to sell the capacity to somebody else, so there is a natural tendency towards a monopoly (which is also in a way in the interest of the customer: Building two networks necessarily doubles the cost, which ultimately the customers have to pay for). Also, they are in charge of the American internet anyway. One law regulating some aspect of the internet does not in any way change how much power people have over some other aspect. If people can make a law banning hacker news, they can do so without NN regulation existing beforehand.

lern_too_spel 8y ago

The Internet was a government network, fully controlled by the government until the transit links were privatized. Once that happened, it took government-granted monopolies to connect ordinary people to it. The fact is that the Internet has been government regulated since day one and deregulating it without a plan in place to ensure the deregulation goes well for the users of the Internet is sheer lunacy, especially since the ISPs have already shown what they plan to do.

KozmoNau7 8y ago

>"the government is now more trustworthy than tech companies in protecting people's use of the internet." Yes, it absolutely is! Just like other basic utilities, such as water, power and sewers. I wouldn't trust private companies with those services, either.