Hacker News Reader

Comment by djb_hackernews | Hacker News Reader

Hmm. I feel the exact opposite. The fact we are even debating net neutrality is scary.

I was under the impression that there was debate because people in general don't trust either big business or the government to police things properly.

That's basically it. It's just that the dittoheads think net neutrality = government policing when it's not. The telecoms have done a bangup job of misinforming the free market dogmatists on that matter.

Well, the hippies are for net neutrality, you see.

The rest of it follows from there. Brain need not engage.

Government mandated net neutrality is basically what most of the debate is about. I don't see much of the net neutrality debate framed outside of whether or not the government should enact regulation.

I'd like to clarify because my comment is ambiguous. It's scary either way. Either we end up with a fragmented internet like the article suggests, or end up with a heavily regulated internet like the article suggests. Both are scary outcomes.

and someone playing the false dichotomy card in 3...2...

The fact that it has generated debate suggests that any attempt at Internet access control will be micro-examined end to end. Even if rationality and human decency fail to prevail, I trust that bureaucracy will slow things down well enough.

The fact that we have to rely on the nature of bureaucracy scares me. It shows that rationality and human decency are failing.

I do not believe that current attempts to control internet access and content are being micro-examined end to end.

Not to sound too defeatist, but over the course of human history, when have rationality and human decency ever succeeded?

Regardless, there is no reason we shouldn't continue to help them succeed (by being rational and decent).

Civil rights movement?

Really? The debate is a valid one.

Net Neutrality (forcing telecom companies to relinquish control over their property), is only potentially a valid idea because they hold a government-assisted monopoly. They receive government subsidies and have specific permission to lay down fiber-optic cable.

If these were totally independent companies that existed and thrived without the aid of government, appropriating their property for the public would be illegal and immoral.

I believe it is legal in many or most countries. In the USA the power of the state to expropriate property for the public good is called eminent domain, and it is affirmed by the US constitution.

However, in that case, you don't force the original propertyholder to continue maintenance of the site.

The US has anti trust laws, too, you know. And they were introduced for a reason.

You're not allowed to collude or leverage dominance in one market (infrastructure) into an unfair advantage in another market (content).

This is why free markets work -- if we refused to regulate anything, ever, it'd be oligarchy, and there'd be precious little "free" about it.

You're not allowed to collude or leverage dominance in one market (infrastructure) into an unfair advantage in another market (content).

Citation needed. Apple dominates the college student/professional artist demographic. They sell hardware coupled software - it is illegal to run their software on any non-Apple hardware.

This is why free markets work -- if we refused to regulate anything, ever, it'd be oligarchy, and there'd be precious little "free" about it.

That is absolutely wrong. By definition a free market has no regulation (besides prevention of fraud). In fact the only thing giving telecom companies a monopoly is the government.

EDIT: To the person who voted me down, would you mind explaining why? I'd be fascinated to know.

EDIT 2: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to enforce ownership ("property rights") and contracts

Did your history teacher skip the Gilded Age?

For the most part, yes. Would you mind explaining how that's relevant?

The very, very short version:

During the Gilded Age, as the industrial revolution was happening, a small number of people controlled all of the money and infrastructure. Then, there were no laws against collusion or antitrust or any of that. If you owned the railroad line to Denver, you could insist that you'll only ship your brand of widget to Denver, and everyone loses except you. You win big.

So they routinely fucked everyone else over, and life is much better now that we don't have a few massive trusts dominating the whole economy.

Well I appreciate the summary.

It's interesting that you should bring up the railroad industry as an example of why anti-trust laws are necessary....

The railroad industry was extremely corrupt and was heavily subsidized by the government. They received special treatment and competition was forbidden.

Corruption in America's Gilded Age http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3614.html

Are you noticing a trend here?

Yeah, I'm noticing a trend - you don't even know basic history, but you think you know all the answers and they're so obvious that you can be smug and condescending about them.

Here's a hint: they aren't. Black and white proclamations about "government this" and "free market that" are used by 2 kinds of people : demagogues, and the useful idiots who follow them. Which are you?

but you think you know all the answers and they're so obvious that you can be smug and condescending about them.

With the exception of me stating my opinion that appropriating private property is immoral, I have simply been stating facts. In fact I can tell this discussion has degraded because you have resorted to ad hominem attacks.

Black and white proclamations about "government this" and "free market that" are used by 2 kinds of people : demagogues, and the useful idiots who follow them. Which are you?

Sometimes the extreme view is the correct one. Just because it is extreme does not make it inherently wrong. You are the one being dogmatic. And I'm not even saying that net neutrality is wrong. I very clearly stated that it should remain open for debate - it is not an cut and dry issue.

"Freedom and equality for all" - I take the extreme view on that. Does that make me wrong? If you view the free market as a moral issue then this comparison does not seem so far-fetched.

Yes, the attitude of "I don't have to know what I'm talking about in order to hold an extreme view and be 100% confident in it" is not only wrong, it underlies most of the avoidable catastrophes in human history.

Ok we're done.

IANAL but extending "eminent domain" to telecommunications infrastructure does not seem straightforward or cut and dry. Eminent domain typically refers to a physical property.

And eminent domain has been affirmed by subsequent supreme courts rulings - it is not explicitly defined in the constitution.

If they were totally independent, they would also need to give up their common carrier and safe harbor status.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com