4 ms·

the contention is that they are obviously different in kind, and the difference in kind makes it fairly obvious why we would want regulation for ISPs prima face

the contention is that they are obviously different in kind, and the difference in kind makes it fairly obvious why we would want regulation for ISPs prima facea, but not content companies like Facebook and Netflix. The government does not protect Netflix's status as a media platform any more than they protect Blockbuster. ISPs are more akin to power companies, which provide vital infrastructure in virtue of government fiat.

ethbro 9y ago
You're using Netflix as a straw man for your argument. Facebook isn't a content company, Netflix is not yet vertically integrated, and it makes less than 1/7th of Facebook's profits. I've also never stated that ISPs shouldn't be regulated. In fact, I'd prefer they both be regulated in order to promote open access to the market and more disruption. So I ask again, why would we not want to regulate structural oligopolies?
- jknoepfler 9y ago
  "good for the consumer" is sufficient reason for regulating government granted monopolies, within reason. In general it is NOT sufficient justification to regulate a company in the free market. The bar for regulation in general is substantially higher, at least in the United States. There is a bar, of course (environmental regulation preventing dumping waste or emitting carcinogenic fumes, for example) and we will likely spend millions of person hours over the next decade figuring out where it is for large content companies (which Facebook is), but saying "it's good in both cases, therefore we should regulate both types of companies" is not correct (which was your argument). Which is to say, regulation might be justified in a less free-market oriented country, like France, on equivalent grounds, but there is a substantive moral and legal distinction to be made in the minds of many who enjoy a free market economy. And no, Netflix is not a straw man. My argument applies just as well to Facebook, StackOverflow, Ebay (which is regulated as a commerce platform), Google, Amazon, etc., as it does to Home Depot, Walmart, etc. etc. We default in these cases to not regulating.

ethbro 9y ago

You're using Netflix as a straw man for your argument. Facebook isn't a content company, Netflix is not yet vertically integrated, and it makes less than 1/7th of Facebook's profits. I've also never stated that ISPs shouldn't be regulated. In fact, I'd prefer they both be regulated in order to promote open access to the market and more disruption. So I ask again, why would we not want to regulate structural oligopolies?

jknoepfler 9y ago
"good for the consumer" is sufficient reason for regulating government granted monopolies, within reason. In general it is NOT sufficient justification to regulate a company in the free market. The bar for regulation in general is substantially higher, at least in the United States. There is a bar, of course (environmental regulation preventing dumping waste or emitting carcinogenic fumes, for example) and we will likely spend millions of person hours over the next decade figuring out where it is for large content companies (which Facebook is), but saying "it's good in both cases, therefore we should regulate both types of companies" is not correct (which was your argument). Which is to say, regulation might be justified in a less free-market oriented country, like France, on equivalent grounds, but there is a substantive moral and legal distinction to be made in the minds of many who enjoy a free market economy. And no, Netflix is not a straw man. My argument applies just as well to Facebook, StackOverflow, Ebay (which is regulated as a commerce platform), Google, Amazon, etc., as it does to Home Depot, Walmart, etc. etc. We default in these cases to not regulating.