Hacker News Reader

Comment by Florin_Andrei | Hacker News Reader

Internet providers need to quit playing these shenanigans all the time.

What they do is they build public roads. You wouldn't allow a company to build a public road, and then go:

"Safeway trucks get a free pass, cause we have a deal with them; everyone else, $5 per vehicle. Except for you, Best Buy, you pay $25 - except Saturday and Sunday, when you may not pass at all."

View on HN

Well, I do see signs on side streets all the time that say "no trucks over 3 tons". And I've seen parking signs that had incomprehensible terms.

I agree with your position, but I think your analogy is tortured.

I also see police on the roads, that prevent random lunatics from driving while tripping balls and ramming into my ass at 150 km/h during my morning commute. I think that's also a function of government.

Secondly, if you think the "no trucks over 3 tons" signs impinge on your "liberty", then go ahead and drive a 25 ton truck down that road, see what happens. I'm having this discussion about "liberty" versus common sense with my 3rd grade son all the time.

I certainly never said "no trucks over 3 tons" impinges anyone's liberty. I was implying that "no trucks over 3 tons" is equivalent to saying "no one is allowed to consume more than X amount of bandwidth" on my public pipe, which is exactly how the network providers are going to couch their arguments when trying to strangle Netflix.

There is probably a good technical reason as to why there is a 3 ton limit, i.e. the road (or bridge this road crosses) can't support >3 tons and will probably collapse under the weight of a heavier vehicle. There are also good safety reasons such as not wanting 25ton 18 wheelers using the road past your local primary school as a rat run. That's where your analogy fails.

Well a long time ago I would have been all for public roads, but alas do you really trust the Federal government to dictate what does go down the pipe and who is allowed?

Do you trust the Federal government to dictate what goes down the road and who is allowed to drive?

I recommend blind trust in nobody, as a rule. But with the government, at least there's the option of voting against the current office holders. Whereas when a Comcast-TimeWarner super-juggernaut takes over the whole market, what are my options? My lawyers versus theirs? Yeah, that would end up "well".

With the government, at election time, you have the option to vote between one corrupt asshole or the other. With corporations, you can just choose to not buy from them (therefore starving them of money).

So, in the case we're discussing here (and directly applicable to my own situation BTW, but that's anecdotal), people will have the "choice" between, let's see... Comcast-TimeWarner and... Comcast-TimeWarner. Great choice, I'll take seven!

Or I could choose to not buy, therefore starving myself of the resources they provide. That's even better!

So you really, really have to have Internet/cable, and they must give it to you cheaply and at high quality? If you're not even considering the option of walking away from them, you're giving them enormous leverage over you.

EDIT: This is the behavior of "rational economic actors", IMHO. If the benefit you get from the expensive Internet they offer is bigger than the cost, it's rational to take it. If it isn't, then it's rational to pass on it. If enough people do this, then the corporation realizes they get more customers by lowering prices (if they also act as "rational actors").

Many people really, in a practical sense, do have to have the Internet, and at reasonably high quality. Work and school being two common cases.

The 'rational actor' model is to economics what spherical cows [1] are to dairy farms. It is a simplifying assumption that is useful for certain general cases, but if you ever find yourself depending upon it in an argument, you're working at too shallow a level.

In this case, though, even if the rational-actor model were valid, you'd be wrong. In the case of monopolies and oligopolies, the rational-actor approach is to, basically, let yourself be screwed by the monopolist.

For example, in my case I'm in an area where I pay more money for worse broadband (ADSL) because I hate monopolists like Comcast. From an economics perspective, I'm an irrational actor, because I'm not optimizing for my own interests.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

> Many people really, in a practical sense, do have to have the Internet, and at reasonably high quality. Work and school being two common cases.

Work and school are economic investments with concrete returns; financially, you get more out of Internet access than you pay. If you didn't need Internet for either of these, and just used it for Netflix or World of Warcraft (or any kind of recreation), would you reconsider paying for it?

Sorry, I'm not interested in jumping through your theoretical hoops. As a non-Comcast user who does need the internet, that doesn't seem like an interesting game to me.

Then do the constituents of your city, county, state, and country a service and either stand for election, volunteer time for a candidate that's not an asshole, or donate money to the campaign of a candidate that's not an asshole so they get on the ballot. Otherwise you get what you deserve.

What if a company built a private road and did the same thing? Would you still have a problem with it?

I've no problem with what people and companies do in their own backyards.

... Best Buy pays more than anyone else? Hm, this is starting to sound good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com