Time to release the internet from the free market – and make it a basic right
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
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.
Lots of people have been concerned about censorship when it comes to net neutrality. Not sure why the response is that we want legal protection instead of technical. All of the major vendors of devices that access the internet are pro net-neutrality. Can't we get censorship-resistant, privacy aware DNS resolution at the very least? Maybe not exactly this, but something like this would be nice:
https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/dns-over...
I think realistically protecting DNS responses would be enough. Even a relatively advanced adversary would have trouble blocking your access to specific sites that way. Can you block a specific CloudFlare-protected site, or specific Twitter accounts? Not really.
AFAIK, the bits you can do with DPI aren't cheap. Only adversaries with reasonably deep pockets can apply. (To be clear: referring to things like sniffing SNI on TLS connections.)
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.
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.
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.
The problem where I live is I have two ISP choices that are equally bad for different reasons. One the one hand I have the reprehensible Comcast whom I won't do business with ever again because of how they screw people and how bad cable tv is. On the other hand, I have Frontier, the world's shittiest phone and DSL service which is way over-subscribed. My neighbor refers to it as "North Korea Internet" which is accurate. I only go through Frontier because Comcast as a company is ethically far worse.
But don't worry, only governments can impinge on your free speech, so it's totally OK that Google and their ilk revoked your DNS. /s
> In a free market its competition which lowers costs.
What competition? For most of my hometown, we have two options, and we're not going to get a third without government influence. Low costs - hah. They're raising their prices (in concert with each other), because they know you don't have a choice.
Sadly it is government influence which limits you to two, requesting more action from them will certainly only make things worse.
Sure, the under-cutting is temporarily good for the consumers, but once the new player has been bankrupted, the prices go right back up.
We've seen it before; we'll see it again.
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.
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.
Also worth remembering that while their profit margins are in the 10-15%, that 10-15% represents billions of dollars.
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 as Friedman compares duplication of economic efforts to duplication of intellectual research (a point which I think some on HN can appreciate).
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.
>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..
It's hard to think of greater scale of cooperation than what happens in the free market
> What would those SIGs defend?
Without even getting very creative: obscure routes to place lines, brands of hardware, companies to outsource installation/maintenance to, subsidizing of higher up core internet infrastructure, acceptable and unacceptable internet content, subsidizing internet content (since what good is the "right" of internet access if you don't have the "right" to certain content). This is just scraping the surface.
> Not everyone competent work for money. Maybe that will weed out the sociopaths from C-level positions, at least.
You're right but not in the way you think. The sociopaths are drawn to positions of power.
> I'd love to know your reasoning behind this.
Virtually every government department has armored vehicles, SWAT style teams, etc. Just a cursory google search reveals that even many local school districts now have armored vehicles, grenade launchers, etc.
> Which cuts costs because they are already doing it and there is no increase in their workload.
As stated previously, any cost savings possibly imagined are greatly outweighed by the bureaucratic machine created.
> It's completely understandable to be throttled in peak load times and enjoy more resources off-peak.
Turning the internet into the commons means there is no "off-peak".
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.
Obviously the free market can't give everyone everything you want, but it's the best known vehicle for maximizing it.
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.
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.
How exactly do you draw this line and why is that line more natural than others? Is the idea of a division between "societal rule that isn't a regulation" and "societal rule that is a regulation" even coherent?
Absolutely. Societal rules recognizing the rights of property owners would deem pollution as a trespass and violation of property rights. Unfortunately 19th century courts gave in to the wealthy businesses and essentially voided that societal rule in favor of a kind of Coasian analysis of pollution.
> How exactly do you draw this line and why is that line more natural than others?
Societal rules when you break them down are obvious to people and reflect how most people live their day to day life. It is typically when the basic societal rules are first voided in favor of something else, that government regulation is considered. In such cases it makes more sense to just restore the base societal rule.
> Is the idea of a division between "societal rule that isn't a regulation" and "societal rule that is a regulation" even coherent?
Sure. As I replied to someone else, this is a fallacy in equating government regulation with the will of society. They are not always equivalent.
Of course they're not equivalent; the will of society is itself full of self-contradictions and instabilities. No specific social process is the same as "the will of society". Are you saying government regulation isn't part of the will of society, though? The government is certainly significant part of society. What makes its processes different from others?
> Societal rules when you break them down are obvious to people and reflect how most people live their day to day life. It is typically when the basic societal rules are first voided in favor of something else, that government regulation is considered. In such cases it makes more sense to just restore the base societal rule.
I agree. Lets repeal the Inclosure Acts.
That's what we call regulation.
In a true free market, the market would decide that as well.