3 ms·

I was actually expecting a net-neut. sucks because we need a freer market - this paper is just ridiculous. Sounds more like the Federalist Society to me... I a

I was actually expecting a net-neut. sucks because we need a freer market - this paper is just ridiculous. Sounds more like the Federalist Society to me... I agree though that a better market is preferable to NN and the current system. The issue here is how to solve the network effects / physical monopoly problems that plague the industry. On the one hand, no one is going to run a fully parallel system - even the incumbents didn't. They bought it from companies who bought it from companies that went bankrupt in the process of doing it. This means we'd need to either nationalize the existing system or put it into some type of co-op with the internet users as the voting group (via the gov't) - or less drastically we could mandate a certain bulk rate discount (w/ indexing to some of the known variables) so that new players could instantly begin competing without needing to overcome the massive infrastructure issues. ...or we could just do net neutrality which is a good stop gap - which is what it seems is the current pragmatic solution. Let's hope a better market-based system can eventually replace the monopolies, but until now it seems like NN is the way to go.

specialist 16y ago
> Sounds more like the Federalist Society to me... Bingo.
wtallis 16y ago
What kind of benefits would we expect a magical solution to the inefficiency of the broadband market to provide as compared to what a comprehensive net neutrality law would provide? Or, to put it another way, if we get a good net neutrality law passed, what techniques are left for the cable/dsl duopoly screw us with? We already have laws against price fixing, so if those are enforced in addition to net neutrality, most consumers would get pretty close to the quality of service they would get out of a properly competitive market. I would be wary of the government trying to indirectly prevent the shady practices net neutrality would outlaw --- it could too easily end up providing screwed up incentives the way agricultural subsidies do.
- nickpinkston 16y ago
  I think this is a question that isn't discussed enough. So you've formed the question as: "how can they screw us through X more", and that's certainly part 1 of the question, there's also the second part of "how can this reduce innovation - and screw us in the long term". I approach this from the incentive alignment that drives politics. I assume that both big biz and gov't are in Part 1: Corporations influencing the law Laws are written by/for lobbyists on each side. Making a new law will inherently draw out the lobbys of each side (certainly has here). If corporations are allowed to play with the laws regulating them - you can imagine that they'll try to gain as much power as possible. Think about the banking regs and how the banks just raised the fees on other things instead - same problem. Part 2: Law Slowing Innovation Even if NN didn't have the influence issues, it'd still be regulating the way the internet is today - not how it might be. Just as we've seen in banking, when you put restrictions on the bad guys, you also hurt the good guys. Look at what happened to Prosper.com, etc. when they tried something innovation in banking. Look at how there are no progressive banks - only progressive services using the banking system. I'd like to avoid this issue at well so the internet so can further refined. By regulating the source of the issue, the natural monopoly of the fiber network itself, can we allow innovative firms to get in the market quickly and have incentives to innovate - or at the very least encourage the big guys to keep up.

specialist 16y ago

> Sounds more like the Federalist Society to me... Bingo.

wtallis 16y ago

What kind of benefits would we expect a magical solution to the inefficiency of the broadband market to provide as compared to what a comprehensive net neutrality law would provide? Or, to put it another way, if we get a good net neutrality law passed, what techniques are left for the cable/dsl duopoly screw us with? We already have laws against price fixing, so if those are enforced in addition to net neutrality, most consumers would get pretty close to the quality of service they would get out of a properly competitive market. I would be wary of the government trying to indirectly prevent the shady practices net neutrality would outlaw --- it could too easily end up providing screwed up incentives the way agricultural subsidies do.

nickpinkston 16y ago
I think this is a question that isn't discussed enough. So you've formed the question as: "how can they screw us through X more", and that's certainly part 1 of the question, there's also the second part of "how can this reduce innovation - and screw us in the long term". I approach this from the incentive alignment that drives politics. I assume that both big biz and gov't are in Part 1: Corporations influencing the law Laws are written by/for lobbyists on each side. Making a new law will inherently draw out the lobbys of each side (certainly has here). If corporations are allowed to play with the laws regulating them - you can imagine that they'll try to gain as much power as possible. Think about the banking regs and how the banks just raised the fees on other things instead - same problem. Part 2: Law Slowing Innovation Even if NN didn't have the influence issues, it'd still be regulating the way the internet is today - not how it might be. Just as we've seen in banking, when you put restrictions on the bad guys, you also hurt the good guys. Look at what happened to Prosper.com, etc. when they tried something innovation in banking. Look at how there are no progressive banks - only progressive services using the banking system. I'd like to avoid this issue at well so the internet so can further refined. By regulating the source of the issue, the natural monopoly of the fiber network itself, can we allow innovative firms to get in the market quickly and have incentives to innovate - or at the very least encourage the big guys to keep up.