Hacker News Reader

Comment by martin1975 | Hacker News Reader

martin1975

In choosing a corporate shill like Pai, I think Trump has no idea of the kind of Trojan horse he unwittingly planted for his 2020 re-election. NN is, at least in my view, an entirely non-partisan, cross cutting concern/issue that concerns -everyone-, regardless of their views held on any particular point.

Yes, I am aware that increasing ISP competition will nullify the need for NN, but that is -not- where we are now, are we? Leave the regulation in place, or at least put some serious conditions and stimuli for new broadband investments if you're going to repeal NN. The way they went about it now makes it look like all they're trying to do is enrich the entrenched players.

This is sure to bite this administration in the ass far more than they imagined.

View on HN

> I am aware that increasing ISP competition will nullify the need for NN

I see this argument being used a lot, but I think it is a logical fallacy.

Why do they assume that non-NN will increase ISP competition?

I have a choice of exactly one ISP in my area and I really don't see how the repeal of NN will make other ISPs lay fiber to my place.

Can someone break down this argument for me? I cannot.

I think you have it backwards. The argument is that, assuming we have a lot of competition between ISPs (which is obviously a false assumption in the US), there is no need for NN.

Well, that still does make a very bad argument, exactly because it is a false assumption.

But aside from stating the obvious: I would actually be interested if there is a country where a lack of competing ISPs is not the status quo. And if there is, what the reason for that might be. If there is, I'd assume it would have to do with that country treating network infrastructure the same as roads and allowing small companies to access it.

I think UK has pretty healthy competition between ISPs.

Denmark have reasonable competition. Exactly for the reason you assumed. A small ISP just rents the cabel.

Well, despite the appalling infrastructure in Australia, I had a choice of:

* Exetel

* Optus

* Vodafone

* Dodo

* iiNet (the only one who provides fibre here)

* Telstra

At every residence I've occupied. 3 or more seems to the national norm.

So far as I understand it, it's common for providers to rent their architecture to other providers, so long as they are using similar pricing. (The NBN is slightly different as the mostly-Telstra-controlled NBNCo gets to set minimum prices for some reason. It results in usually-identical pricing.)

Like sibling comment said, you have it backward. The argument is "more competition -> no need for net neutrality", not "repeal of net neutrality -> more competition"

Unfortunately, competition is hard to foster when the barrier for entry is so high as to discourage ISPs to build out wherever their competitions already provide service (which leads to effective monopolies).

> The argument is "more competition -> no need for net neutrality"

Are you sure?

Ajit Pai's argument is here: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16777626/ajit-pai-net-ne...

Also: https://fee.org/articles/goodbye-net-neutrality-hello-compet...

> I think Trump has no idea of the kind of Trojan horse he unwittingly planted for his 2020 re-election.

Not at all. Odds are more or less certain that Trump won't have a serious Republican primary challenge, because parties almost always support their incumbents. It's more likely that net neutrality will be an issue in the Democratic primaries, but once both parties pick their candidates, most Americans distill their choice down to not being able to vote for somebody who is pro-guns/anti-guns or pro-immigration/anti-immigration or pro-abortion/anti-abortion or one of any other hot-button, "this touches my deepest moral sense" issues, and vote Democrat or Republican accordingly.

> In choosing a corporate shill like Pai, I think Trump...

Don't you mean the last administration? Pai has been with the FCC since 2011.

> Leave the regulation in place, or at least put some serious conditions and stimuli for new broadband investments if you're going to repeal NN.

You mean government regulation that does nothing to the big players? The government still has failed to go after Comcast after they violated the terms of the Comcast - NBCUniversal merger. Or what about the millions of dollars given to Verizon to expand their FiOS network and have yet to make good on that.

Crying more government regulation does not help if the government picks and chooses who it will go after and when. If anything, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) should be where "Net Neutrality" should be enforced since this would be an issue of failing to provide a good or service.

Edit: Missing word.

> Don't you mean the last administration?

Both. Obama appointed Pai to the FCC; Trump appointed him chair.

Was this not going to happen anyway (next one in the chain)? Many appointments require some sort of recommendation by someone already in power...

If the worst predictions come true, and we're all forced to watch Comcast on Demand (now with 50% more ads) and pay for Comcast Chat, you may have a point.

But if things don't change very much without net neutrality regulations, this might all seem like much ado about nothing in three years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com