7 ms·

As a libertarian, I would interpret protecting "our most basic freedoms" meaning the right to freely enter into agreements with whichever service providers we c

by reedlaw 16y ago

As a libertarian, I would interpret protecting "our most basic freedoms" meaning the right to freely enter into agreements with whichever service providers we choose. If a service provider chooses to limit bandwidth to certain sites I would be free to buy Internet service elsewhere. But, as a libertarian, I also recognize the fact that this will never work as long as government continues to regulate these services in any way. If government gives special favours to big providers there will never be an opportunity for small ISPs to compete.

maxxxxx 16y ago
That would be OK if there was a functioning market for ISPs. But there clearly isn't. Most people don't have a choice of service provider and the cost of entry is too high for new competitors to come in.
- warrenwilkinson 16y ago
  Technological barriers mean high profits for existing players. This in turn brings more and more entrepreneurs looking to bypass the barrier (either through new technology, capital intensive partnerships, or other avenues) and reach the gold.
  - leot 16y ago
    The fallacy here is the engagement of "long-run" reasoning, which assumes that market inefficiencies are static long enough for entrepreneurs to overcome the various barriers to entry (the long-run requires an assumption of stationarity). It's an empirical question whether entrepreneurs can reach the gold when it's constantly moving, and whether the economic cost of doing so is less than the cost of some smart regulation.
    - warrenwilkinson 16y ago
      If the incumbents close the opportunity by offering better service -- than the original parents problem no longer exists. Businesses compete with potential competitors and potential technologies too. The higher the price, the more incentive for your users to look at alternative solutions (which includes starting a competing service). Greater demand for alternatives will be answered.
jshen 16y ago
in a libertarian world who owns the cables to your house? How does someone with a better idea/business model get new cables out to everyones house?
- warrenwilkinson 16y ago
  Who needs to own cables? You could rent cable in some areas, rent satallite for others, build short range wireless towers in others, use laser transmission here, build above ground infrastructure there, channel packets through power cables here, and phone lines there, and speed it up with local caching here, here and here. Technology changes, don't expect the ISP killer to look like an ISP. Just as the land-line phone killer in no way looked like a better land line phone provider.
  - zachrose 16y ago
    s/cables/infrastructure/g
  - jshen 16y ago
    Who would you rent them from? In a libertarian world who should have owned the cables for the past 20 years? How would competition happen when the cost of running new cables all around the country is extremely high?
    - warrenwilkinson 16y ago
      As with everything, if you want something you either buy it or build it. If the cost to use existing infrastructure is too high, demand for alternatives will grow. If this demand can supplied, great, if it can't, then nothing can be done by market or government. You've correctly pegged me as a Libertarian =), but I don't know who should be the title holders of the existing infrastructure.
      - jshen 16y ago
        The point is that a new business can't dig up everyones backyard if they think the current phone companies are doing a bad job, even if there is demand. I don't see how the libertarian model can work in this case.
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
There's a third way that works for everybody: defining the market. So government could simply say there are seven different types of internet service. Perhaps the lowest would be free service that forces you to watch ads. The highest service could be a SLA -- guaranteed bandwidth. That way there is no regulation, _and_ the market is free to operate, _and_ you can have net neutrality, you only have to pay extra for it. What we have instead is problematic in many ways: the FCC taking control where it was not intended to go, and internet providers purposely obfuscating the issue with individual rights jargon. This entire boondoggle is because of Congress not acting and the bureaucracy acting in its stead. The blame for inaction goes to both parties, not just one or the other. I doubt very many Congressmen could talk to net neutrality at the level of an average HN'er. They just get donations, pick sides, then spin the issue to conform to whichever principle their base could support. I'm in favor of Net Neutrality, but it's a devil's bargain. The individual will lose more in the long run than they will gain. Why? Because the forces at work here trying to confuse the market to maximize profits will still exist after a net neutrality law is signed. They'll just go underground and start manipulating the regulators instead of the Congressmen. Then you get the same shitty deal except there's nobody you can kick out of office when it doesn't work. Oh yeah, and you get more government control over the net. We should all remember that the next time we rant about internet kill switches.
- webXL 16y ago
  "So government could simply say... That way there is no regulation" When the government says something, people, desks, computers, buildings, health plans, 401Ks, and occasionally arsenals, all need to be set up to prevent Joe Schmoe from saying, and more importantly, doing something contradictory. That's called regulation. "The individual will lose more in the long run than they will gain..." So why are you in favor of Net Neutrality again??
spenrose 16y ago
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it requires a starting point of free actors entering into commerce with each other. If "government" were not involved here, none of these service providers would exist at all. They have been given legal monopolies / oligopolies over markets created by government investment. It is superficially plausible to think that "free market" reasoning might still be useful in sorting out how things should work, but as a practical matter the voices arguing loudest for libertarian ideology are paid for by rent-seeking oligopolists. (None of this is meant to challenge your sincerity, BTW.)

by reedlaw 16y ago

maxxxxx 16y ago

That would be OK if there was a functioning market for ISPs. But there clearly isn't. Most people don't have a choice of service provider and the cost of entry is too high for new competitors to come in.

warrenwilkinson 16y ago
Technological barriers mean high profits for existing players. This in turn brings more and more entrepreneurs looking to bypass the barrier (either through new technology, capital intensive partnerships, or other avenues) and reach the gold.
- leot 16y ago
  The fallacy here is the engagement of "long-run" reasoning, which assumes that market inefficiencies are static long enough for entrepreneurs to overcome the various barriers to entry (the long-run requires an assumption of stationarity). It's an empirical question whether entrepreneurs can reach the gold when it's constantly moving, and whether the economic cost of doing so is less than the cost of some smart regulation.
  - warrenwilkinson 16y ago
    If the incumbents close the opportunity by offering better service -- than the original parents problem no longer exists. Businesses compete with potential competitors and potential technologies too. The higher the price, the more incentive for your users to look at alternative solutions (which includes starting a competing service). Greater demand for alternatives will be answered.

jshen 16y ago

in a libertarian world who owns the cables to your house? How does someone with a better idea/business model get new cables out to everyones house?

warrenwilkinson 16y ago
Who needs to own cables? You could rent cable in some areas, rent satallite for others, build short range wireless towers in others, use laser transmission here, build above ground infrastructure there, channel packets through power cables here, and phone lines there, and speed it up with local caching here, here and here. Technology changes, don't expect the ISP killer to look like an ISP. Just as the land-line phone killer in no way looked like a better land line phone provider.
- zachrose 16y ago
  s/cables/infrastructure/g
- jshen 16y ago
  Who would you rent them from? In a libertarian world who should have owned the cables for the past 20 years? How would competition happen when the cost of running new cables all around the country is extremely high?
  - warrenwilkinson 16y ago
    As with everything, if you want something you either buy it or build it. If the cost to use existing infrastructure is too high, demand for alternatives will grow. If this demand can supplied, great, if it can't, then nothing can be done by market or government. You've correctly pegged me as a Libertarian =), but I don't know who should be the title holders of the existing infrastructure.
    - jshen 16y ago
      The point is that a new business can't dig up everyones backyard if they think the current phone companies are doing a bad job, even if there is demand. I don't see how the libertarian model can work in this case.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

There's a third way that works for everybody: defining the market. So government could simply say there are seven different types of internet service. Perhaps the lowest would be free service that forces you to watch ads. The highest service could be a SLA -- guaranteed bandwidth. That way there is no regulation, _and_ the market is free to operate, _and_ you can have net neutrality, you only have to pay extra for it. What we have instead is problematic in many ways: the FCC taking control where it was not intended to go, and internet providers purposely obfuscating the issue with individual rights jargon. This entire boondoggle is because of Congress not acting and the bureaucracy acting in its stead. The blame for inaction goes to both parties, not just one or the other. I doubt very many Congressmen could talk to net neutrality at the level of an average HN'er. They just get donations, pick sides, then spin the issue to conform to whichever principle their base could support. I'm in favor of Net Neutrality, but it's a devil's bargain. The individual will lose more in the long run than they will gain. Why? Because the forces at work here trying to confuse the market to maximize profits will still exist after a net neutrality law is signed. They'll just go underground and start manipulating the regulators instead of the Congressmen. Then you get the same shitty deal except there's nobody you can kick out of office when it doesn't work. Oh yeah, and you get more government control over the net. We should all remember that the next time we rant about internet kill switches.

webXL 16y ago
"So government could simply say... That way there is no regulation" When the government says something, people, desks, computers, buildings, health plans, 401Ks, and occasionally arsenals, all need to be set up to prevent Joe Schmoe from saying, and more importantly, doing something contradictory. That's called regulation. "The individual will lose more in the long run than they will gain..." So why are you in favor of Net Neutrality again??

spenrose 16y ago

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it requires a starting point of free actors entering into commerce with each other. If "government" were not involved here, none of these service providers would exist at all. They have been given legal monopolies / oligopolies over markets created by government investment. It is superficially plausible to think that "free market" reasoning might still be useful in sorting out how things should work, but as a practical matter the voices arguing loudest for libertarian ideology are paid for by rent-seeking oligopolists. (None of this is meant to challenge your sincerity, BTW.)