6 ms·

I'm in favor of network neutrality myself. My main criticism is that it doesn't go far enough, in that it only requires neutrality from network providers to con

I'm in favor of network neutrality myself. My main criticism is that it doesn't go far enough, in that it only requires neutrality from network providers to content providers but not vice versa or like-to-like. But I do have a serious question for other supporters. How can so many of those who are usually anti-regulatory "free market" extremists also be so strongly in favor of this regulation? * This is their theory, not necessarily mine * Internet service is a market. In theory, without network-neutrality regulation, providers can charge extra for certain services but market forces will limit how bad that can get. You can't charge for something that people won't buy. Customers will go to competitors who offer what they think are more favorable terms, including competitors who claim no limits at all (even if the promises are misleading or impossible to keep). This already happens in other countries. People post the price sheets as support for network neutrality regulation, but those same price sheets are also evidence that lack of such regulation does not mean the end of the internet as we know it. As long as the content differentiation is explicit and subject to consumer choice, not behind-the-scenes discrimination, there should be no problem. * Now, back to my own thoughts * If somebody believes (as I do not) that markets are fully capable of regulating themselves in all necessary ways, why would they support regulation in this one case? Is it just because this particular regulation is seen as benefiting them personally? Is it because their "free market" beliefs are really pro-corporate beliefs, and network neutrality as currently defined benefits the corporations they like at the expense of the corporations they don't? Can anybody provide a convincing alternative free-market justification for network neutrality?

jrs235 9y ago
>How can so many of those who are usually anti-regulatory "free market" extremists also be so strongly in favor of this regulation? Because in the US, network providers (at least the last mile providers; those charging end consumers) are local monopolies. Most people in the US have one legit high speed internet option, a few have two. There is little competition and the barriers to entry for new comers is very high (cost of obtaining easements and running cable to every house). In situations like this, monopolies are to be regulated.
- notacoward 9y ago
  I'm not convinced that such local monopolies change the equation here. Access to the internet might be a right, but is unlimited access to Netflix a right? A monopoly on essentials must be regulated, because there's no market elasticity (and the extremists often deny even that). A monopoly on entertainment, though? Even a monopoly is constrained in how much in can charge for such a thing before customers just walk away. Network Neutrality(tm) isn't about constraining these monopolies. It doesn't even address the issues of price gouging or discrimination against consumers. If that's what we want, there are whole different sets of laws to talk about. The regulations currently at issue only seem to address concerns orthogonal to those related to monopolies.
  - jrs235 9y ago
    The ISPs (with their local market monopolies) are also content providers. How is them using their network/distribution monopoly to gain an unfair advantage for their content distribution different from Microsoft using their OS to gain an unfair advantage for their browser in the 90's? Isn't NN about constraining unfair competition practices?
    - neom 9y ago
      That is FTC not FCC.
      - jrs235 9y ago
        Fair enough. If the ISPs don't what to be liable for the content that traverses their network then they ought to be neutral to content and not prioritize traffic based on it's content (or source, destination, protocol, etc). But if they are inspecting the packets then they should have some liability for what they are delivering and the content on their network. The ISPs want it both ways like someone else mentioned, the want to control what people see but not be liable (responsible).
        neom 9y ago
peatmoss 9y ago
I too think this is an interesting question. I also think you’re hinting at what I believe as well, that networks are a classic case of economic good that make the preconditions for a free market nearly impossible. Some people are so committed to the ideal of unfettered market conditions that they lose sight of whether such conditions are possible. Such people are normally immune to all reason when it comes to assessing the true potential for a market to exist. So why the crack in the facade in this instance? I think Internet access is one of those areas where people accutely feel the obnoxious rent seeking behavior of monopolists on a day to day basis. As an aside, I do think it’s funny how much talk we hear of entrepreneurs seeking to create network effects with their products. To what end? Presumably to create another means—beyond simple competititve product fitness—to retain customers and extract value from them. You want network effects? Try owning an actual network, where there are first mover advantages, and huge barriers to market entry!

jrs235 9y ago

>How can so many of those who are usually anti-regulatory "free market" extremists also be so strongly in favor of this regulation? Because in the US, network providers (at least the last mile providers; those charging end consumers) are local monopolies. Most people in the US have one legit high speed internet option, a few have two. There is little competition and the barriers to entry for new comers is very high (cost of obtaining easements and running cable to every house). In situations like this, monopolies are to be regulated.

notacoward 9y ago
I'm not convinced that such local monopolies change the equation here. Access to the internet might be a right, but is unlimited access to Netflix a right? A monopoly on essentials must be regulated, because there's no market elasticity (and the extremists often deny even that). A monopoly on entertainment, though? Even a monopoly is constrained in how much in can charge for such a thing before customers just walk away. Network Neutrality(tm) isn't about constraining these monopolies. It doesn't even address the issues of price gouging or discrimination against consumers. If that's what we want, there are whole different sets of laws to talk about. The regulations currently at issue only seem to address concerns orthogonal to those related to monopolies.
- jrs235 9y ago
  The ISPs (with their local market monopolies) are also content providers. How is them using their network/distribution monopoly to gain an unfair advantage for their content distribution different from Microsoft using their OS to gain an unfair advantage for their browser in the 90's? Isn't NN about constraining unfair competition practices?
  - neom 9y ago
    That is FTC not FCC.
    - jrs235 9y ago
      Fair enough. If the ISPs don't what to be liable for the content that traverses their network then they ought to be neutral to content and not prioritize traffic based on it's content (or source, destination, protocol, etc). But if they are inspecting the packets then they should have some liability for what they are delivering and the content on their network. The ISPs want it both ways like someone else mentioned, the want to control what people see but not be liable (responsible).
      - neom 9y ago

peatmoss 9y ago

I too think this is an interesting question. I also think you’re hinting at what I believe as well, that networks are a classic case of economic good that make the preconditions for a free market nearly impossible. Some people are so committed to the ideal of unfettered market conditions that they lose sight of whether such conditions are possible. Such people are normally immune to all reason when it comes to assessing the true potential for a market to exist. So why the crack in the facade in this instance? I think Internet access is one of those areas where people accutely feel the obnoxious rent seeking behavior of monopolists on a day to day basis. As an aside, I do think it’s funny how much talk we hear of entrepreneurs seeking to create network effects with their products. To what end? Presumably to create another means—beyond simple competititve product fitness—to retain customers and extract value from them. You want network effects? Try owning an actual network, where there are first mover advantages, and huge barriers to market entry!