3 ms·

Friendly reminder that economists surveyed are far more likely to be for paid prioritization than against http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii h

by ikeboy 9y ago

Friendly reminder that economists surveyed are far more likely to be for paid prioritization than against http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii

charter_sucks 9y ago
yeah....i mean i feel a big part of this is because these people made it without the internet and feel it's not as necessary as people rely on it today.
- pzone 9y ago
  I can assure you that like all academics, economists are thoroughly reliant on the internet.
woodrowbarlow 9y ago
> Net neutrality is a fiction. Hire Akamai (et al.) to mirror your servers worldwide to speed content to your users. - David Autor this is an infuriating argument. distributing your content throughout a network of servers to decrease rtt and increase cache hits is how the internet is supposed to work. giving priority to powerful corporations in an already congested network infrastructure, on the other hand, is anti-consumer and promotes monopolization.
raverbashing 9y ago
They are also in favour of letting people starve, on environmental externalities to be ignored and to nickel and dime people for short term profit ignoring long term consequences
- ikeboy 9y ago
  Do you have links to the IGM polls showing that?
soundwave106 9y ago
In a fully capitalist market for broadband, I would indeed feel net enforced neutrality is not quite as necessary and would agree with the pro-market economist comments more. Generally speaking, I would expect that consumers could have a choice between various tiers and qualities of service. I'm fairly sure a "net neutrality" type tier would be one of the options here (there's enough for demand for it.) The current marketplace is a different story. In many places in America, Internet service is a defacto monopoly. And the current legal landscape is anti-competitive and protects the big players. States can't experiment with their own net neutrality policies [1]; heck, legislation is in place in many states to defacto prevent municipal broadband alternatives [2]. And even with private players like Google Fiber, the "big players" show every willingness to use nuisance lawsuits in attempt to delay that pesky capitalist competition from coming into play. [3] I did notice that a lot of the comments in that survey of economists brought up both the anti-competitive nature of the current broadband market, as well as the worry about vertical integration (which also is a monopoly concern). So it's not like they aren't aware of some of the strongest reasons (MHO) for needing net neutrality style regulations at the moment. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-or... [2] https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/resources/brief_broadband.pdf https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/resources/brie... [3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171101/10474538530/att-backs-off-nuisance-lawsuit-intended-to-hamstring-broadband-competitors-like-google-fiber.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171101/10474538530/att-b...
- nickik 9y ago
  Exactly. So many people don't get that. Really 'net neutrality' is sort of the wrong battle. I want to be able to write soft real time application on the internet. You are right, the market economist are basically just misinformed about the structure of the market. Most of them are not actually people that know much about the internet or work in that space specifically. My attempt at a solution is to equate packets with real live postal services. The postal service is not allowed to open your packets but they are allowed to look at the stamp. This is how the IP protocol was designed to work, and it would work, but that requires a change in how IP do pricing and so on and so on.
bo1024 9y ago
Did you read the wording of that survey? It's very deceptive to link responses to net neutrality. "Should companies have to pay more for faster internet speeds?" "Probably yes"
- ikeboy 9y ago
  It's pretty much exactly what paid prioritization is, which is a major part of what NN bans.
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    No, actually it's not. You can pay for a better connection yourself, but "paid prioritization" essentially slows down other people for the person connecting to you, through no fault or issue of theirs.

by ikeboy 9y ago

charter_sucks 9y ago

yeah....i mean i feel a big part of this is because these people made it without the internet and feel it's not as necessary as people rely on it today.

pzone 9y ago
I can assure you that like all academics, economists are thoroughly reliant on the internet.

woodrowbarlow 9y ago

> Net neutrality is a fiction. Hire Akamai (et al.) to mirror your servers worldwide to speed content to your users. - David Autor this is an infuriating argument. distributing your content throughout a network of servers to decrease rtt and increase cache hits is how the internet is supposed to work. giving priority to powerful corporations in an already congested network infrastructure, on the other hand, is anti-consumer and promotes monopolization.

raverbashing 9y ago

They are also in favour of letting people starve, on environmental externalities to be ignored and to nickel and dime people for short term profit ignoring long term consequences

ikeboy 9y ago
Do you have links to the IGM polls showing that?

soundwave106 9y ago

In a fully capitalist market for broadband, I would indeed feel net enforced neutrality is not quite as necessary and would agree with the pro-market economist comments more. Generally speaking, I would expect that consumers could have a choice between various tiers and qualities of service. I'm fairly sure a "net neutrality" type tier would be one of the options here (there's enough for demand for it.) The current marketplace is a different story. In many places in America, Internet service is a defacto monopoly. And the current legal landscape is anti-competitive and protects the big players. States can't experiment with their own net neutrality policies [1]; heck, legislation is in place in many states to defacto prevent municipal broadband alternatives [2]. And even with private players like Google Fiber, the "big players" show every willingness to use nuisance lawsuits in attempt to delay that pesky capitalist competition from coming into play. [3] I did notice that a lot of the comments in that survey of economists brought up both the anti-competitive nature of the current broadband market, as well as the worry about vertical integration (which also is a monopoly concern). So it's not like they aren't aware of some of the strongest reasons (MHO) for needing net neutrality style regulations at the moment. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-or... [2] https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/resources/brief_broadband.pdf https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/resources/brie... [3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171101/10474538530/att-backs-off-nuisance-lawsuit-intended-to-hamstring-broadband-competitors-like-google-fiber.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171101/10474538530/att-b...

nickik 9y ago
Exactly. So many people don't get that. Really 'net neutrality' is sort of the wrong battle. I want to be able to write soft real time application on the internet. You are right, the market economist are basically just misinformed about the structure of the market. Most of them are not actually people that know much about the internet or work in that space specifically. My attempt at a solution is to equate packets with real live postal services. The postal service is not allowed to open your packets but they are allowed to look at the stamp. This is how the IP protocol was designed to work, and it would work, but that requires a change in how IP do pricing and so on and so on.

bo1024 9y ago

Did you read the wording of that survey? It's very deceptive to link responses to net neutrality. "Should companies have to pay more for faster internet speeds?" "Probably yes"

ikeboy 9y ago
It's pretty much exactly what paid prioritization is, which is a major part of what NN bans.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  No, actually it's not. You can pay for a better connection yourself, but "paid prioritization" essentially slows down other people for the person connecting to you, through no fault or issue of theirs.