4 ms·

The argument is that Net Neutrality is a regulatory device, thus hampers proper free market competition, hence prevents prices from properly going down. To me

by lloeki 9y ago

The argument is that Net Neutrality is a regulatory device, thus hampers proper free market competition, hence prevents prices from properly going down. To me Net Neutrality is a needed regulation that forces telco ops to compete on telco stuff. In that framework it's a free market competition and it does bring prices down as well as allows additional players to enter the game on ground unbiased by deep pocketed content production, which is a venue in direct conflict of interest with the telco (i.e be a pipe) side of things.

TheRealPomax 9y ago
That's a false chain of reasoning. It's a regulatory device that prevents discrimination of service based on content and origin. It does not hamper free market competition, it protects human beings from monopolies and cartels and sets up the legal framework within which the free market is allowed to operate. Pretty much every industry has these regulations, and the market's doing just fine. You can't have an actually working free market without a regulatory oversight to act as feedback coupling. You need a dampening force, it just needs to be appropriate to the times, and net neutrality is appropriate to the now.
- lloeki 9y ago
  > That's a false chain of reasoning. Agreed, I was merely outlining the opposite side argument in a very concise way so that it's immediately obvious how much broken it is. > It does not hamper free market competition, it protects human beings from monopolies and cartels and sets up the legal framework within which the free market is allowed to operate. This is precisely my opinion, as stated in my second paragraph.
thomastjeffery 9y ago
The flaw in that argument is the idea that all regulation always significantly hampers free market competition. That is so clearly not the case with this specific regulation, that your conclusion is total nonsense. Net Neutrality is a term describing a necessary quality for the internet to have in order to be a free market. Net Neutrality regulation is necessary because ISPs do not have competition to prevent them from breaking that. Net Neutrality regulation requires ISPs to keep a few records, costing them a tiny amount, which is totally reasonable, and will not hamper the free market in any way.
- lloeki 9y ago
  > That is so clearly not the case with this specific regulation, that your conclusion is total nonsense. Just to be clear, the first sentence is not my argument, and not my point of view at all: I was merely stating in a very clear way the (flawed) chain of reasoning people in favour of killing net neutrality put forward, which makes it all the more obvious how much nonsensical it is. If you (re)read my second paragraph you will notice that it exactly states your last three sentences, and that we definitely agree.

by lloeki 9y ago

TheRealPomax 9y ago

That's a false chain of reasoning. It's a regulatory device that prevents discrimination of service based on content and origin. It does not hamper free market competition, it protects human beings from monopolies and cartels and sets up the legal framework within which the free market is allowed to operate. Pretty much every industry has these regulations, and the market's doing just fine. You can't have an actually working free market without a regulatory oversight to act as feedback coupling. You need a dampening force, it just needs to be appropriate to the times, and net neutrality is appropriate to the now.

lloeki 9y ago
> That's a false chain of reasoning. Agreed, I was merely outlining the opposite side argument in a very concise way so that it's immediately obvious how much broken it is. > It does not hamper free market competition, it protects human beings from monopolies and cartels and sets up the legal framework within which the free market is allowed to operate. This is precisely my opinion, as stated in my second paragraph.

thomastjeffery 9y ago

The flaw in that argument is the idea that all regulation always significantly hampers free market competition. That is so clearly not the case with this specific regulation, that your conclusion is total nonsense. Net Neutrality is a term describing a necessary quality for the internet to have in order to be a free market. Net Neutrality regulation is necessary because ISPs do not have competition to prevent them from breaking that. Net Neutrality regulation requires ISPs to keep a few records, costing them a tiny amount, which is totally reasonable, and will not hamper the free market in any way.

lloeki 9y ago
> That is so clearly not the case with this specific regulation, that your conclusion is total nonsense. Just to be clear, the first sentence is not my argument, and not my point of view at all: I was merely stating in a very clear way the (flawed) chain of reasoning people in favour of killing net neutrality put forward, which makes it all the more obvious how much nonsensical it is. If you (re)read my second paragraph you will notice that it exactly states your last three sentences, and that we definitely agree.