Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

This isn't going to be a popular point of view here on HN, but the article isn't wrong. Title II isn't just "net neutrality." It's a heavy-handed regime dating from the 1930's, the sort of overbearing regulatory regime that even Democrats abandoned decades ago, during Bill Clinton's tenure.

There's also a strong desire here to "have your cake and eat it too." Everyone wants high-speed fiber infrastructure that's also neutral, with no tie-ins to content. In the current market, it's not clear that such service is even profitable: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_13/b42210461... (recent asset sale suggests that Verizon might be losing money on FiOS). Having high-speed "dumb pipes" may be great for internet companies, but building "dumb pipes" isn't exactly a lucrative business. As long as we are reliant on private companies to build internet infrastructure, you'll have to make it worthwhile for them to invest billions of dollars in such infrastructure, and that's not going to happen by imposing heavy new regulatory burdens on the industry.

If it's not profitable for a company such as Verizon, isn't that another argument towards classifying broadband as a utility and setting up service providers through a munincipal partnership where profit isn't the goal?

If profit isn't the goal then it's going to be funded by taxpayers? A lot of non nerds don't care about super fast broadband (which is one of the reasons it's hard to roll out profitably). You're going to tax them to pay for something they don't want?

Faster broadband isn't just an improvement on a personal level where specific power users benefit, as we've seen in cities that start up partnerships with Google Fiber it's an incredible boost to the city's economy from various businesses and startups that choose to operate in a city wih improved broadband access. Taxpayers may not be paying for specifically themselves, but it's no different than tax dollars to be used to fund a public library even if you don't personally go there, or to finance a rennovation that will allow for more tourism opportunities. That's the entire point of taxes, that they don't directly pay for your specific desires.

This is a dodge. Every family would see some economic upside from the universal deployment of fiber Internet. But upper-class professional families would see more upside than working class urban families. As a subsidy, universal fiber Internet is regressive.

If it's an upside for everyone, how is that supposed to be regressive? Is tourism regressive? Or libraries? Do you have any examples of a tax payed for service that is somehow totally equally spread in it's helping of people?

You didn't read my comment carefully. It's an upside for everyone, but it's more of an upside for rich people. Just like the "Bush tax cuts".

Examples of progressive public services? Public schools seem like a pretty good example there.

It is a fine thing to have an upside for everyone even if rich people get more of the benefit. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Art Institute; these are good things. The problem happens when we use public funds to finance them.

I don't think you read mine either. We already do that, we already use public funds to pay for things that do, or have the potential to, benefit the rich more. Besides the fact that there's no way to actually prove paying for bradband with taxpayer money would disproportionately help the rich, should we audit every single tax-payed-for entity to make sure it's perfectly fair?

No? How about we just think carefully before plowing money into obviously regressive services that the market is already providing?

I mean... yeah if you start from the assumption that universial broadband access is regressive then it'd be a bad idea but that's making a massive assumption with only one outcome

1.) The market is already providing those services in a terribly inefficient and inadequate way that places the US at a massive disadvantage to the rest of the world which is already light years ahead of us in broadband access

2.) The current system is vastly more disadvantageous to lower income people who can't afford the ridiculous pricing models ISPs provide

A majority of low-income urban families already have broadband access. Most of them would benefit more from lower teacher/student ratios in classrooms, or more frequently scheduled bus routes, than they would from a service that provides most of its value to people who pay monthly fees to Netflix and Amazon.

Giving everyone fiber Internet is an awesome move if fiber Internet is free. But since it isn't, it has to compete with every other spending priority that governments have.

I certainly haven't heard that "a majority of low-income urban families already have broadband access", in fact I've read pretty much the exact opposite. I certainly agree that there are a host of other improvements that need to be made and it would be nice to see taxes spent on things like you stated, but saying that we shouldn't try to improve internet access just because other problems exist isn't any more valid than saying we shouldn't invest in space travel until we've solved all problems on Earth.

1) It is factually incorrect to state that the rest of the world is light years ahead of us in broadband access. Connecting speeds in the US are faster than all but a handful of other countries most of which are very small & dense (like South Korea). See: http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/akamai-soti-q413.pdf?WT.mc_i...

Perhaps this misunderstanding of the current state of reality is leading you to reach incorrect conclusions.

Most utilities are private companies that essentially get fixed profit. Essentially they operate on a cost-plus system.

That was how telecom was run in America for 50 years and it didn't work out. These sorts of companies aren't innovative or efficient.

Any investment in new upgrades would require a public utility commission to approve a rate hike. Guess what, the public isn't going to support you raising their rates for faster internet.

Maybe it is the way to go, but you gotta be damn sure they do it correctly the first time. Because you won't get upgrades.

Are the current munincipal partnerships with Google Fiber worse than the current totally private run ISPs?

Google Fiber is a totally privately run ISP. It is even less regulated than Verizon Fios. Google Fiber exists because Google is given an exemption from all sorts of local regulations.

Proposing Title II is pretty much the opposite of that.

What do you think happens once Internet access becomes a "utility"? Do you like dealing with the utilities you have now? Everywhere I've lived, "utility" implies:

* DMV-level customer service

* Delayed capital improvements (single tree branches falling in alleys routinely knock out power for as much as 1/5th of Oak Park)

* Opaque pricing

* Utterly baroque billing (I've had power cut twice due to billing SNAFUs)

Much more importantly: who knows what the Internet is going to look like 15 years from now? Regulating an industry as a utility retards investment by capping the upside.

I don't like the idea that Comcast can favor Amazon over Netflix and do think there should be some lightweight regulation that prevents anticompetitive collusion between providers and networks. But Title II is a pretty scary regulatory regime; it gives the FCC control over product packaging, pricing, network interconnection, and customer dispute resolution.

It does way, way, way more than just protect Netflix.

Don't most of those points apply to Comcast and T-W right now?

Comcast is god-awful. Just abysmal. Priced terribly. Performs terribly. Wildly uneven customer service, including overt dishonesty.

But having just had the experience of getting an account up with them at my new office:

Having AT&T available as an option solved virtually every one of my problems, from pricing to installation dates. "AT&T says they can do XXX". "Comcast says they can do YYY". Worked great.

I do not in reality have that option with regulated utilities.

So where's the downside to the current munincipal partnerships areas like Kansas City have with Google Fiber?

Non sequitur. Google Fiber is also not a Title II service.

What? I'm not saying that broadband access has to be a Title II service, I was just refuting you saying that the current privatized system is better than a utility/munincipal solution because you had a choice between two providers.

I can't understand the argument you're making here. The problem with Title II isn't that Title II is intrinsically evil. It's that Title II is a regulatory regime similar to that of a public utility. Like most utility regimes, it gives regulatory agencies influence over pricing, product packaging and availability, implementation/delivery, and dispute resolution. I don't understand the logic of a rebuttal that says "OK, skip title II, and just treat ISPs like utilities".

I didn't mean to imply we should skip Title II, I was more saying that regardless of the method, Title II utility classification or munincipal run entity or another opiton, just anything other than the current privatized system

This comment isn't responsive to mine.

This comment isn't responsive to mine.

Google's arrangement with Fiber cities is the exact opposite of a municipal partnership. With a typical municipal utility, there is a public agency with strong oversight over the utility, as well as rate-setting powers, etc. Even when with the private cable companies, municipalities routinely impose terms like build-out requirements, fees to fund public access TV, obligations to build municipal communications infrastructure for free, etc. Google won't agree to anything like that: http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2014/05/g....

FWIW: I get a vastly superior experience from Seattle utilities than Comcast or any number of other private services. About my worst complaint is that PSE (the local natural gas company) has a hokey early 2000s website with ugly visual design...but functional SSL and working autopay + email billing. Whenever I've had to call them to change service or what have you, I've spent less than five minutes getting a knowledgable human who isn't reading a script onto the phone. Seattle City Light is equally good; the trash pickup people have annoying timing but responsive customer service and extremely friendly workers. I've had one power outage in about four years (lightning strike to a distribution station.) As for rates, power and gas are fine. Trash I feel is a little high, but not unworkably so (and they're trying to incentivize me to compost and recycle more, both of which are free at the margin.)

Seattle city government is borderline incompetent, our bus system is collapsing due to union capture, we can't build roads or tunnels...but the utilities seem to work Just Fine. I'd be very happy if Seattle City Light ran fiber.

(This despite Seattle's incompetent city government trying to roll out municipal fiber and failing miserably. I just wonder what would have happened if the utilities had been in charge.)

Yeah, the Title II part seems unnecessary for net neutrality and ill-suited for the internet in general. I'm not sure why that was the tack he decided to take.

My understanding, unless I'm wrong, is that a Title II reclassification can be done unilaterally by the FCC without Congressional assent (though it would immediately be sued by all the carriers). Accordingly, I'm reading it as a political ploy to force Congress into giving the FCC a better-suited regulatory regime for it than Title II, despite Congress currently not being friendly to such a thing. He's saying, in effect: "I want net neutrality badly enough that I'm willing to use this horrible regulation to do it that no one really wants, unless you cave and give me a better way." It might be a bluff?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com