Comment by Marco Alka on "Why is net neutrality important?"

Why is this wrong? It's pure business.

The main argument here is that smaller competition without the funds cannot compete anymore, ultimately leading to few monopolistic companies. You will only have Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Twitter. There is no place for things like startups anymore, because the usage of a small/new/unknown service provider now has even more downsides and getting people to use a new idea will become ever more difficult. On the other hand, since they have the monopol, big companies will change... and you won't like those changes*.

Take a look at the whole discussion from the perspective of a FOSS developer (which you probably are). Why should anyone use your FOSS software, if it is very slow compared to one of the giants, which also doesn't take money. No matter how good and disruptive your product is, you stand no chance. Capitalism sure has its merits, but anyone without money is at a severe disadvantage, if neutrality isn't preserved.

In your case: think Hashnode. SO probably has more funds than Hashnode. So they can strike a deal with the ISPs in the US and everyone will have the same access speed as before. Hashnode might not be able to afford the high prices, so it will be throttled and we will all have a really slow HN experience, even though you optimized Hashnode to be very fast. People in the US might decide to leave HN, because it is annoying to always wait for every little thing to be transmitted. What would your sponsors say if you lost many people in the US?

Maybe it's also a thing of attitude. Maybe I watch too much Star Trek. Imho, the way of the USA is not right. They are capitalistic. Because of that, many people have to suffer. Of course, there are companies which try to act differently by providing lots of free services and software, like Google does (AOSP doesn't even take your personal data as compensation!). I think, trading personal information still is wrong, however it at least enables more people access to those products and services. I think, that's a good direction and through awareness and improvements in the security sector leads to a brighter tomorrow.

I don't see a future for the way we misuse money today, but setting up a new system will probably take decades to centuries, given that important leaders start even thinking about it.

\* (Let's use Intel as an example for what happens to monopoles. Over the last couple of years, their CPUs became absurdly expensive, while at the same time they didn't bring out any new development at all. The production companies shrank the die size and Intel added a few more PCIe lanes. That's the sum of what they managed to deliver while AMD was fighting for survival. I am still on an Ivy Bridge and I don't see any reason why I should switch to a current Intel chip (Kaby Lake) other than burning money. The extensions are the same, the core count is the same, and with OC, the clock speed is better than that of a current stock CPU. IPC have increased slightly, but that's marginal and rather sad for all the time which passed. Comparing my office PC (Skylake) to my home computer, I don't feel any difference in speed)

I agree with Marco. This is BS. Richard Stallman put it best:

What we have in the US today is not Capitalism. It is _extreme capitalism. _There is a difference. Some competition between companies used to be encouraged to make better products.

Now it's absolutely out of control. In fact, these huge companies is who really run the country, not Donald Trump. This is not and was not how capitalism was intended to be, even here in the US! People have taken and perverted it. It's going to be over when net neutrality goes away and they start putting their BS into our actual CPU chips which I have a feeling will be next: hired-wired privacy invasions... It's coming and it's ugly.

Marco, I agree that net neutrality ensures an even playing field for everybody, which is the whole point of a free and an open market. If the internet companies had their way, it would lead to monopolisation. My initial thought process was that, internet companies are private bodies and they can operate within the rules permitted by the law. But, if any of their actions are going to lead to monopolisation, that shouldn't be permitted.

Siddarthan Sarumathi Pandian fast-lanes, enabled by law on a national level, would encourage the practice of throttling anyone who cannot pay for a service we today might even think of as a base right.

Additionally, it wouldn't only disturb the national market. Because the internet is an international collaboration, everyone connected would feel the effects.

Marco Alka - it does lead to monopolization, but why is it WRONG ? The data providers are looking to make money because they are the ones who set up the towers, satellites etc. The internet is a free place, but services provided by AT&T is not. So as long as they are charging for the services they provide, i fail to understand how its legally binding on them to ensure equality

Ribhu Sarma

why is [monopolization, as is in the US atm,] WRONG ?

tl;dr: because rules like the one discussed atm and monopoles like the ones mentioned

lead to stagnating development
lead to high product prizes
lead to agreements which are hard/impossible to fight as an individual (or startup)
are limited to US national laws, but affect the whole world

Let's compare internet to water. You have to pay to get piped water to your house. What if a law was released, which allowed water vendors to level the amount of water you receive? You make a contract for 100l. If you want more, you will have to buy a 10000l contract, even though you only need 200l. Why do they do that? Because some employee did a calculation and found out that that's the way to maximize profit. What can you do against it? Nothing, because law says that the vendor is allowed to regulate the amount. You might not have enough money, so you will have to budget your water. On the other hand, if you try to sell your own water, the giant will either buy you, or lower prices until your company has to pay in order to sell water. The monopol always wins.

Well, we don't need internet to live (as is with water), but I think, if we leave out that detail, it's a pretty nice comparison to show you why monopoles are inherently bad.

So, why is a law like that wrong? Because I pay my taxes so that I am protected against something like that. It is the task of the country/state to make sure that the market is a fair place.

I get your point

Lets talk about this with respect to the same analogy given by you, IF i am the water provider and i have done the work of laying out the pipes and building storage units, ensuring supply of clean water, am i not entitled to charge what i want for the service i am providing? You as a consumer/customer can always refuse the service and chose someone else.

I completely agree with you on the fact that monopoles are bad, but is there sufficient legal footing to ask someone to moderate their services according to the whims of a consumer ?

Ribhu Sarma That's what the state is for. It should be a mediator between price gouging and consumer interests. And while you can already charge what you want today, the new laws would allow for more unfair advantages for big companies, leading to disadvantages on the consumer side. I believe, the current balance should not be disrupted, but rather stabilized. We already have enough disadvantages as is... (for example the "up to" speed problem, which lets companies charge high prices without giving any guarantee for delivering)

Marco Alka This is the best answer I've seen on the web. Maybe it's because it speaks so much for startups. I don't think anyone could have said any of this better...

Search Hashnode