Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhizome | Hacker News Reader

There is no basis for your contention that "internet" would be cheaper without NN.

Given that reduced upstream costs typically translate into reduced downstream costs, and that regulation typically increases downstream costs, I think the onus is on NN-proponents to prove why the reverse is true.

> regulation typically increases downstream costs

This is a common claim that is rarely supported with data. Why does enforcing net neutrality increase downstream costs?

If you mean that it shifts costs (you pay more for Netflix because they have to pay Comcast for fair service), then sure. I don't see any evidence that net neutrality actually changes the underlying cost of net service, though.

There's a great counterpoint to your claim in the USPS. Their prices are regulated by congress. Those prices are pushed down artificially to the point that it's slowly bankrupting the USPS. So service is definitely cheaper than it would be without regulation. (Send a letter via FedEx and see what the free market charges for this service.)

I didn't posit that NN will increase costs; only that the onus for demonstrating otherwise lies with NN-proponents. I don't have data to support conventional wisdom; only that the conventional wisdom is reasonable given that compliance adds overhead.

Compliance with net neutrality doesn't actually add overhead. Neutrality is the default. Treating different traffic differently requires effort.

This isn't really a cost argument, but ISPs are currently double-billing for traffic, so presumably their revenue would go down under NN. Presumably under NN ISPs would raise prices to maintain profit margin.

Sure. That double billing is just shifting costs, though. You end up paying for their double billing anyway.

Data caps or outright banning traffic to certain IP ranges does not necessarily reduce the costs for the ISP. For many ISPs, you are negotiating on bandwidth, not on total data rendered to the backbone, and you find your peak bandwidth needs are being generated when everyone is online and saturating their access between 7-10pm every night.

Bandwidth usage whales are just those that constantly use the bandwidth they paid for - which, outside of those peak traffic windows, isn't actually costing you anything to provide, because you aren't saturating your bandwidth anyway.

If ISPs want to cut costs, they rate limit customers (globally or during their peak usage times). That reduces the amount of routing hardware they need and the amount of backbone bandwidth they need to buy. If they institute data caps or try to break the Internets P2P architecture, they are just destroying the intent of the Internet while still having the same peak bandwidth rates they always did. Their routers just run cold now at night because nobody is using them for anything.

How would you respond to the fact that A lot of ISPs have local monopolies and they have 0 incentive to pass on any savings they materialize to customers? Also, many ISPs are also media companies, and sabotaging internet based entertainment is beneficial to them?

I think we should prohibit monopolies. Anyway the incentive isn't zero, we needn't exaggerate. ISPs aren't the only company to participate in multiple markets, I don't see why we should be more concerned about them than Amazon.

>Given that reduced upstream costs typically translate into reduced downstream costs

Can you go into a little more detail about "given" here? I'm not under the impression that it's true.

If business A can make a widget for $1.00 less than business B, business A will in all likelihood pass some of that savings onto the consumer to incentivize them to buy widgets from business A. Business A makes a little extra and the customer saves a little extra.

Again, this is the typical scenario; there are certainly cases that don't fit this mold, but they would be atypical.

The widget being a rivalrous good doesn't affect this?

Facebook gives away Free Basics "internet". Although I'm not sure I'd call that internet...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com