Comment by miguelrochefort | Hacker News Reader

Comment by miguelrochefort | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

miguelrochefort

Why is net-neutrality a good thing?

I understand that public services (e.g., government, roads, electricity, mail) should be neutral since they're imposed to us. Likewise, private services that were subsidized by the government should also be neutral. Same goes for artificial monopolies (i.e., only company X is allowed to provide service Y in area Z).

That said, it seems like legitimately private companies (no artificial monopoly, no subsidy) should be free to apply any arbitrary restrictions to the services they provide. No law should prevent a philanthropist from launching a satellite providing free access to Wikipedia (and nothing else).

I don't know if people defending net-neutrality are selfish (I don't want to pay any extra), are actually seeking neutrality for all public/subsidized/monopolistic services (not just the net), or if they just do it because it's trendy.

People used to be able to buy a video game and have access to all of its content at no additional cost. Today, people buy a game but still need to pay extra to access some content. Some people believe it's absolutely scandalous (see Reddit vs Battlefront 2). They seem to be the same people that defend net-neutrality. I can't help but think that both instances are motivated by selfishness and resistance to change.

>I can't help but think that both instances are motivated by selfishness and resistance to change.

I don't think its the people that don't want to spend $2000 or spend the equivalent of 2 years of a full-time job to play a videogame on even ground are the ones that are selfish.

I don't think it should necessarily be regulated, because they can just buy and play a different game, but EA are definitely the ones being assholes here.

Free markets are healthy when businesses and customers, for the most part, act in good faith with one another. The way its supposed to work is a company attempts to build a great product/service that people want, sets a price that makes them profitable, and then customers buy it, therefore rewarding them for their actions. Companies that put an extensive amount of money and effort into researching and implementing psychological tricks to maximize the amount of money they can physically extract from a person are no longer in the business of making/selling good products and/or services. They are in the business of exploiting people. For the most part they are legally entitled to be shitty entities that exist to exploit people, but when a company makes that decision and stops acting in good faith, society has every right to punish them by organizing boycotts and informing other private citizens.

Honestly, even by just adjusting for inflation, videogames should cost somewhat more than $60 in 2017. However, microtransactions aren't about trying to keep the doors open and remain profitable, they are about establishing a license to print money without having to provide much value in return.

>Same goes for artificial monopolies (i.e., only company X is allowed to provide service Y in area Z).

For most of the country ISPs are exactly this kind of artificial monopoly.

What if your phone company charged you more to call/text specific companies or people? Or offered plans where you can only call specific companies for a reduced rate?

It would be very difficult for new companies to enter the market because people would not be able to call new companies, since they aren't under specific plans. The established players could effectively block new competition or make it incredibly expensive to enter the market.

What exactly do you recommend we should do instead? Make all service providers 100% neutral?

- All car dealerships should sell all brands of car.

- All grocery stores should sell all foods.

- All music streaming services should stream all songs.

- All movie streaming services should stream all movies.

- All movie theatres should play all movies.

- All phone companies should let you call all numbers for free.

- All radio stations should play all songs.

- All TV channels should play all shows.

- All cable providers should offer all channels.

- All devices should support all operating systems.

- All airlines should provide flights to all airports

- All stores should sell the same items for the same price.

I have yet to find anyone who supports a majority of the above statements, or is able to explain how they differ from net neutrality.

The tone and manner of your argument don't make think you're interested in understanding the opposing side. Trying to debate with people who insist the structure of the issue is exactly what they see though their ideological lens is unproductive and exhausting.

Your questions don't get answered not because they're devastating to the pro-neutrality position but because they don't address at all what net-neutrality proponents actually believe or why.

If all of the above were true it would be great for new companies and great for consumers with the downside of being unreasonably expensive to the middlemen (car dealerships, grocery stores, etc.). I would say the same thing doesn't apply to internet companies. It's not unreasonably expensive for them to carry all websites and in fact they are making great profits. I don't think the internet companies gaining more profit (by not being neutral) is worth the consumer and new company benefits lost.

The other major issue is competition. All the above examples have a lot of competition, but internet companies are a lot of times monopolies and duopolies. The consumer has no choice but to use them.

> What if your phone company charged you more to call/text specific companies or people? Or offered plans where you can only call specific companies for a reduced rate?

It's very common for carriers here to give unlimited calls to 5-10 people of your choice. Likewise, it's often cheaper to call people on the same network you are.

A lot of companies have 1-800 numbers you can call for free.

1.Internet providers are often artificial monopolies

2. The internet is a public good

> 2. The internet is a public good

Says who?

People on the internet.

Joking aside, the internet is a very powerful tool and like any tool it can be abused by tools (people/companies/governments) for evil. That should NOT be justification for allowing tools to do so by eliminating its neutrality.

If people think the internet should be a public service, why don't they fight for it instead?

...they do?

Your question is unproductive and does not help answer the question posed

Reply on news.ycombinator.com