
Time to release the internet from the free market – and make it a basic right - rbanffy
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/29/net-neutrality-internet-basic-right-america-trump-administration?utm_content=bufferbe9fd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
======
cdoxsey
> They can supply better service at lower cost because they don’t have to line
> the pockets of executives and investors.

Instead they line the pockets of bureaucrats, unions and the local mayor's
brother in law who had a truck and "won" the contract to lay fiber.

Then a citizen posts a screed decrying the behavior of the city board, and lo
and behold, his website is suddenly unavailable to the rest of the city.

In a free market its competition which lowers costs. Firms can try to "line
the pockets of executives and investors" but if their competitors don't,
they're going to lose. We need more competition not a government owned
monopoly.

A municipal internet is tolerable because a local citizenry can hold it
accountable, but the further up the chain you go, the more likely that power
is going to be abused.

Particularly as it relates to free speech.

~~~
pqh
I'm not sure yet what to think about the idea of internet access as a social
program.

However, I'd be less irritated about losing Net Neutrality if competition
actually existed in the US. Break up the monopolies and maybe we can talk
about allowing the free market to guide companies to do the right thing
instead of requiring regulations.

~~~
chiph
In many (most?) cities in the US there is a local monopoly with just one or
two high-speed providers. And this results in no real competition. I'm OK with
my current (and only) provider but I'd like the option to change to someone
else if they offered comparable speed at a lower cost.

I get that the cities don't want the poles along the road loaded down with a
dozen different cables, but fiber optic is a lot thinner than copper pairs. Or
perhaps they could have a couple of companies run the infrastructure at the
wholesale level and resell to the "retail" broadband providers.

~~~
rayiner
> I get that the cities don't want the poles along the road loaded down with a
> dozen different cables,

There's plenty of space on the poles. Cities don't let companies build fiber
because of politics. It costs nothing politically to vote to deny an
application for a franchise. Most voters just don't care about it. But grant a
franchise on non-restrictive terms and potentially end up with new fiber being
built to rich neighborhoods but not poor ones? As Google learned in Kansas
City, now you've stepped on a political landmine.

------
rayiner
This article conflates two different points, only one of which makes sense.
First, the idea that the government can provide services at a lower cost
because it doesn’t need to make a profit is laughable. Even Comcast’s profit
margin is only about 10-15%. Eliminating the profit completely wouldn’t, by
itself, make broadband affordable to poor people.

The second, implicit, point is that richer people should subsidize (via tax
dollars) internet service for poorer people. That is, after all, how we handle
other kinds of basic rights: Medicaid, Section 8 housing, SNAP. And that’s a
fine idea! But it’s completely orthogonal to the first point.

In telecom, we conflate deployment and access. Under state and local
regulations, anyone who wants to become an ISP also has to take on the
government's burden of ensuring access to services. If you want to compete
with Comcast in New York City, you can't build a "minimal viable ISP" in
Chelsea. The government forces you to serve the Bronx too. That not only kills
competition, it doesn't work. Just because you force a company to build fiber
in the Bronx doesn't mean people can afford $70/month for it.

In other areas of the economy, we've learned to separate the two policies. The
government doesn't run old-age homes--it pays private entities through
Medicaid. It doesn't run an agricultural business--it provides SNAP payments.
Governments are moving away from running public housing, and instead provide
Section 8 vouchers.

What we do in telecom, in contrast, is like rent control. Rent control turns
every apartment building into a mini-HUD, which is forced to accommodate
lower-income people by overcharging other residents. Like rent control, it
makes no sense.

~~~
rbanffy
> it’d have made an operating profit of 0.2% last year.

Factor in no need to advertise services, no duplication of effort (and greater
scale), no sales department, no executive bonuses at all levels, no contracts,
no legal department, no billing, no metering and so on.

It's not the profit that makes a difference.

~~~
ancap
> Factor in no need to advertise services

I've seen plenty of advertisements for government services.

> no duplication of effort (and greater scale)

The "duplication of effort" is a plus for a functioning market bringing
competition, cooperation, lower cost, and increased standard of living. [1]

> no sales department

Whether they have this or that department will be greatly outweighed by the
massive bureaucratic burden and special interest groups.

> no executive bonuses at all levels

If they are to have competent people to run the program (which is probably
asking too much of a government program) then they will have to be compensated
similarly as they would be in a private organization, whether that includes
bonuses or not.

> no legal department

Will be replaced by the armed enforcement department.

> no billing

There is but it is outsourced to the IRS or other department

> no metering

Like it or not, access to the internet is a scarce resource, and regardless of
who operates the infrastructure there are technical bottlenecks which have to
be managed. If there are no caps, no metering it will be guaranteed to be
overrun by abusers and be an overall horrible experience. This will
essentially turn internet access into tragedy of the commons.

[1] See the first two-ish minutes of
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB2gBgsqPac](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB2gBgsqPac)
as Friedman compares duplication of economic efforts to duplication of
intellectual research (a point which I think some on HN can appreciate).

~~~
rbanffy
> I've seen plenty of advertisements for government services.

For basic things like roads?

> The "duplication of effort" is a plus for a functioning market bringing
> competition, cooperation, lower cost, and increased standard of living. [1]

Cooperation beats competition. Think Linux and Balkanized Unix (if you want to
stay in the tech analogies)

> Whether they have this or that department will be greatly outweighed by the
> massive bureaucratic burden and special interest groups.

What would those SIGs defend?

> If they are to have competent people to run the program

Not everyone competent work for money. Maybe that will weed out the sociopaths
from C-level positions, at least.

> Will be replaced by the armed enforcement department.

I'd love to know your reasoning behind this.

> There is but it is outsourced to the IRS or other department

Which cuts costs because they are already doing it and there is no increase in
their workload.

> Like it or not, access to the internet is a scarce resource

Yes, but you only need to assess health and ensure QoS levels are maintained.
It's completely understandable to be throttled in peak load times and enjoy
more resources off-peak.

~~~
duckMuppet
> I've seen plenty of advertisements for government services.

>For basic things like roads?

Ever listen to the radio?? The government has a lot of advertisements.
Everything from "Make sure you have the correct child safety seat in your
vehicle" to the standard "think before you drink" or don't beat your wife as
well as the advertising of services that one should use.. You occasionally see
them on late night TV, but you can often see them at times when children watch
tv.

> Will be replaced by the armed enforcement department.

>I'd love to know your reasoning behind this

i think is using historical references. However, govts have notoriously used
force in some method or another. Imminent domain and civil assett forfeiture
readily come to mind. Of course govt can use other methods including
weaponizing it's agencies, e.g. the IRS and the FBI are historic examples, but
one could imagine the FCC doing similar.. I understand that's difficult to
grasp depending on your political persuasion.

> There is but it is outsourced to the IRS or other department

>Which cuts costs because they are already doing it and there is no increase
in their workload

I'm not even sure, are you serious about this??. Surely not.

> Like it or not, access to the internet is a scarce resource

>Yes, but you only need to assess health and ensure QoS levels are maintained.
It's completely understandable to be throttled in peak load times and enjoy
more resources off-peak.

Again. This seems pretty short sighted. Tech changes, and it changes fast. The
idea that we should enshrine some particular technology in place for the
future is horrific in terms of future innovation.

But more than this, i think we now have a fundamental misunderstanding of what
a "right" is. I tend to think the end goal of such articles is the
marginalization of the word, as has been done with other words such as rape..

~~~
vorotato
Those examples are for public service announcements which aren't technically
advertisements.

------
afsina
> It’s time to take back the internet, and make the system we made in common
> serve our common ends."

Left always says "we". No, this is a terrible idea and I am not part of that
"we". Talk for yourselves (call it socialists or whatever) please.

------
GCU-Empiricist
I am reminded from the basic rights discussion in "The Moon is a harsh
Mistress" So who is going to pay for it Tovarich?

~~~
weberc2
I find that most of the anti-market folks think of the free market as this
evil system that keeps people from getting everything for free. If we could
just abolish it, everyone could have everything they want by the power of
friendship and rainbows and butterflies and love.

Obviously the free market can't give everyone everything you want, but it's
the best known vehicle for maximizing it.

~~~
GCU-Empiricist
Exactly. My usual thoughts on communism ect. as a a resource allocation
paradigm are that they'll only work "post scarcity" and even then we'll all be
chasing larger computational budgets.

------
paulus_magnus2
We need a guaranteed community supported (or local gov sponsored) basic
(1-2Mbit) connectivity (wifi / 3G / Microcells). This could be supplied at
near zero marginal cost by installing a €30 repeater / WiFi access point every
time there's a need to service a lamp post, library / church roof etc.

The purpose is not to compete with the free market but to gently "nudge" it
into higher product shelves. Right now telecoms have de facto monopoly
(oliglopoly) and strive to charge max price for least possible quality service
that can be pushed onto market.

------
throwaway2016a
The thought that government won't want to make a profit off broadband is
possibly not correct. Government may and probably will see it as another
source of revenue. Along the lines of toll roads.

For example, here in New Hamsphire the state has a monopoly on liquor sales
(but not beer and wine). So effectively when I buy my Scotch I am buying it
directly from the state and the state makes the profit. It is a huge revenue
source for New Hampshire.

To that point, however, the state Liquor stores have a huge selection. Better
than any private one I have ever seen. And they are actually cheaper than man
states with private stores because the tax is built into the cost instead of
tacked on at the end like at a private store.

------
rmanolis
We don't have free market, when regulations exists.

~~~
danharaj
We don't have any market if no regulations exists.

~~~
ancap
It depends upon how you define regulations. The free market is capable of
regulating itself as long as there are societal rules against stealing and
fraud, rules to enforce contracts, etc.

~~~
rbanffy
> societal rules against stealing and fraud

That's what we call regulation.

~~~
ancap
Your fallacy is in equating government regulation with the will of society. In
most cases regulation is a result of powerful lobbying (which is not to say
that society does not demand some of the regulations codified by government).

------
vorotato
What free market?

