3 ms·

> The internet companies need to lobby, sure, but they also need a "hook." And "openness" and "neutrality" which are words that resonate in Silicon Valley on th

> The internet companies need to lobby, sure, but they also need a "hook." And "openness" and "neutrality" which are words that resonate in Silicon Valley on their own are not ones that resonate in Washington. What about 'unleash competition in the ISP industry'? This seems like a really easy sell--the infrastructure business is a natural monopoly, but there is no good reason to allow the infrastructure owner to control who can serve bits over it. Our current situation is like your power company getting to decide what devices you can plug into your outlets (and trying to shake down device manufacturers for permisson to use the outlets).

lifeisstillgood 13y ago
That is the best and clearest "anti" argument CI have heard in a long time Lobby on this one folks
- NicoJuicy 13y ago
  There is a faster way, use their own weapons against them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7714204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7714204
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
eslaught 13y ago
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but the power analogy doesn't quite work: > Our current situation is like your power company getting to decide what devices you can plug into your outlets (and trying to shake down device manufacturers for permisson to use the outlets). Power (at least in my part of the US) uses metered billing (plus a flat cost). If some company starts selling a device which draws a large amount of power, anyone who uses it will pay larger power bills as a result, so the power company isn't left carrying the financial burden. I suspect that if your ISP could convince you to pay $40/month plus $0.01/GB of up/down bandwidth then all these arguments would probably disappear, because people streaming lots of Netflix more would naturally pay more. And with the bandwidth caps of some providers, it is already heading in that direction. (Of course subscribers have all sorts of reasons not to prefer such a system. Just because it would resolve the current political situation doesn't mean people would like it.)

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

That is the best and clearest "anti" argument CI have heard in a long time Lobby on this one folks

NicoJuicy 13y ago
There is a faster way, use their own weapons against them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7714204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7714204

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

eslaught 13y ago

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but the power analogy doesn't quite work: > Our current situation is like your power company getting to decide what devices you can plug into your outlets (and trying to shake down device manufacturers for permisson to use the outlets). Power (at least in my part of the US) uses metered billing (plus a flat cost). If some company starts selling a device which draws a large amount of power, anyone who uses it will pay larger power bills as a result, so the power company isn't left carrying the financial burden. I suspect that if your ISP could convince you to pay $40/month plus $0.01/GB of up/down bandwidth then all these arguments would probably disappear, because people streaming lots of Netflix more would naturally pay more. And with the bandwidth caps of some providers, it is already heading in that direction. (Of course subscribers have all sorts of reasons not to prefer such a system. Just because it would resolve the current political situation doesn't mean people would like it.)