Hacker News Reader

Comment by pvnick | Hacker News Reader

Good.

The less federal regulation over ISPs the better.

Please don't post ideological talking points to HN. The combination of that and lack of other substance in the comment amounts to trolling, as this subthread demonstrates.

Barriers to entry in the ISP game are too high for competition. Google can't even hack it.

What is your perspective as a free-market advocate in this scenario?

Wait patiently for the inevitable correction.

E.g. innovation like this and other things we can't even imagine yet: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/17/elon-musk...

Let's ban all regulation. You can't imagine what wonderful things I could achieve if I could just help myself to your capital. I know that sounds like a bad deal for you but market forces will prove me right in the end, just wait and see.

You stop too short. Ban all government. Then those who are already invested in the strongest companies win.

Rule by populism -- forget meritocracy or any notion of innovation.

Trump and his ilk don't have enough. They need more.

Your answer actually resonates with me to some degree. It is not my position but I get it and think it would work in an ideal world without corrupted officials. As it stands, I see the less advanced technology thriving for longer than it should, for example fossil fuels today are not being replaced at a pace that would align with what the market demands. More and better government programs to increase sustainable energy would lead to breakthroughs, more (better) jobs, and a healthier economy for 99%. Musk's space-internet would be pushed against for years or decades because of entrenched institutions.

How do you feel about the effect killing net neutrality would have on small businesses that can't afford the fast lanes that their larger competitors would use?

You're right - government officials (not necessarily corrupt even) write legislation influenced by lobbyists who are hired by the big guys to protect their own interests. All legislation is influenced by lobbyists. It's just the name of the game. More legislation and regulation generally has the opposite effect of getting in the way of innovation and market efficiency.

Regarding sustainable energy - a lot of government funding is already going to that in the form of research grants awarded to people in academia looking at those things. We can increase funding, but that's already happening. The surest way to kill those chances would be, for example, create a carbon tax which has the effects of getting government dependent on revenue coming from fossil fuel emissions, and introduces incentives to ensure that revenue source continues.

Regarding your last question - I don't know. Haven't done the research. But I have read enough of classical economics to know that it's probably not a big deal - or if it is an issue that it will be short-lived. If the consumer is sufficiently fucked then it is the corporation who will have shot themselves in the foot. Law of supply and demand in action

Anyone who asserts "the less regulations the better" style arguments has automatically lost the debate. It's trivially easy to demonstrate that some regulations are good, so to start off the discussion with a blanket attack on regulations in general, without addressing any specifics regarding the actual regulation in question, broadcasts solid evidence that this is not an argument presented in good faith.

No. Most people have only one choice for ISP, and that wouldn't change if you got rid of all federal regulation on them. Therefore, regulations are required in order to make sure that people don't get fucked by their ISP.

Correction: "Most people currently have..."

In the long run, the only barrier to competition is regulatory capture, which is much harder to overcome than short-term problems like there not being enough competition. Technical challenges are a lot easier to solve than regulatory challenges, which 100% of the time increase the barrier to entry by, among other things, raising the cost of compliance (have to pay more lawyers, accountants, etc to make any moves in the market).

Regulatory capture seems to be much less of a problem at the FCC than it does at the state level, where ISP lobbyists have convinced various state governments to forbid the construction of things like municipal broadband networks. Get back to us after you've solved the smaller problem.

"In the long run, the only barrier to competition is regulatory capture"

Not true. There's the fact that for many places, they just can't support multiple choices for things like that. There's the equipment, which is extremely expensive anyways. There's running lines.

And, quite frankly, when you say that regulations should be removed, you're basically saying that those in less profitable markets, where there likely wouldn't be much competition even without regulation, don't deserve to have net neutrality.

Do you also feel that regulation of water quality is a bad thing?

Do you also feel that I should pay extra for the electricity used by my Air Conditioning unit or computer than I do for lights?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com