4 ms·

Have ZERO understanding how the Republicans are going to hold off on Anti-Net Neutrality. I am sure this is something that Libertarians will fight tooth and nai

by baldfat 12y ago

Have ZERO understanding how the Republicans are going to hold off on Anti-Net Neutrality. I am sure this is something that Libertarians will fight tooth and nail and well I would say over 12% of currently republicans labeled themselves as such. With 30 congressmen in the House Liberty Caucus things are not so easy for the G.O.P. I feel that there is a strong likely hood that G.O.P. will have a switch for Net Neutrality once they see that this policy has such a strong vocal majority.

untog 12y ago
Why do you assume that Libertarians are pro-net neutrality? It's government regulation that limits what ISPs can do - hardly a free market philosophy.
- LyndsySimon 12y ago
  +1. I'm a libertarian, and I'm not necessarily pro-NN.
  - baldfat 12y ago
    So you are for Government to change the Internet by making rules that only help a localized Monopoly? I don't get how people don't see that this is a monopoly based on Government intervention???? Started with cable TV and now we are stuck with this in internet monopolies which are 100% anti-free market.
    - LyndsySimon 12y ago
      I have no idea how you drew that conclusion from my post.
- ende 12y ago
  According to who? Common carrier is precisely the kind of regulation that free market grandfather Adam Smith supported in his writings. Land-based broadband ISPs do not currently exist in a competetive market, and likely cannot due to issues of redundancy in physical infrastructures. Common carrier regulation is an attempt to limit the effects of such monopoly power. It may be 'two wrongs making a right', but suggest an alternative.
- mhluongo 12y ago
  Pro-neutrality libertarian here. I used to think my philosophy precluded net neutrality, then I looked into how these companies became entrenched- and it was by government support. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
  - fche 12y ago
    two wrongs don't make a right
    - webXL 12y ago
      Exactly. It's what happened with banks. The government passes regulation after regulation, and pretty soon it's hard to tell the difference between the bankers and the regulators except for what kind of car they drive (now), and gets harder for new competition to enter the market, so banks consolidate and eventually become too big to fail, leading to obscene profits for very little risk. Entrenched market players LOVE, LOVE, LOVE more regulation. All they have to do is hire more compliance officers and pass the cost on to us, while at the same time raising the cost of compliance for smaller and would-be competition.
    - mhluongo 12y ago
      Catchy, but inappropriate. If there were a free market way to reset the playing field, I'd certainly prefer that. But I've yet to hear one, and crony capitalists are a problem as much as statists.
      - randyrand 12y ago
        "Mr. Milton, how much government intervention is required to deal with monopolies and..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU
snowwrestler 12y ago
The strongest argument against a legal framework for net neutrality is that it did not exist while the Internet was being built, and look how awesome the Internet turned out. The second strongest argument is the comparison to the phone company. When was the last time a landline phone company was considered a fast-moving, cutting edge technology company?? Not for many decades. Every innovation in telephony service over the past 30 years has come from wireless or Internet telephony companies, both of whom are lightly regulated compared to landline phones. Heavily regulated industries tend to slow down and become conservative; innovation flows around the regulations. You see it in transportation, telecomm, banking, power, etc. I'm not saying these are winning arguments--the world is obviously different now than it was 10 or 20 years ago--but they are not easily dismissed either.

by baldfat 12y ago

untog 12y ago

Why do you assume that Libertarians are pro-net neutrality? It's government regulation that limits what ISPs can do - hardly a free market philosophy.

LyndsySimon 12y ago
+1. I'm a libertarian, and I'm not necessarily pro-NN.
- baldfat 12y ago
  So you are for Government to change the Internet by making rules that only help a localized Monopoly? I don't get how people don't see that this is a monopoly based on Government intervention???? Started with cable TV and now we are stuck with this in internet monopolies which are 100% anti-free market.
  - LyndsySimon 12y ago
    I have no idea how you drew that conclusion from my post.
ende 12y ago
According to who? Common carrier is precisely the kind of regulation that free market grandfather Adam Smith supported in his writings. Land-based broadband ISPs do not currently exist in a competetive market, and likely cannot due to issues of redundancy in physical infrastructures. Common carrier regulation is an attempt to limit the effects of such monopoly power. It may be 'two wrongs making a right', but suggest an alternative.
mhluongo 12y ago
Pro-neutrality libertarian here. I used to think my philosophy precluded net neutrality, then I looked into how these companies became entrenched- and it was by government support. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
- fche 12y ago
  two wrongs don't make a right
  - webXL 12y ago
    Exactly. It's what happened with banks. The government passes regulation after regulation, and pretty soon it's hard to tell the difference between the bankers and the regulators except for what kind of car they drive (now), and gets harder for new competition to enter the market, so banks consolidate and eventually become too big to fail, leading to obscene profits for very little risk. Entrenched market players LOVE, LOVE, LOVE more regulation. All they have to do is hire more compliance officers and pass the cost on to us, while at the same time raising the cost of compliance for smaller and would-be competition.
  - mhluongo 12y ago
    Catchy, but inappropriate. If there were a free market way to reset the playing field, I'd certainly prefer that. But I've yet to hear one, and crony capitalists are a problem as much as statists.
    - randyrand 12y ago
      "Mr. Milton, how much government intervention is required to deal with monopolies and..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

snowwrestler 12y ago

The strongest argument against a legal framework for net neutrality is that it did not exist while the Internet was being built, and look how awesome the Internet turned out. The second strongest argument is the comparison to the phone company. When was the last time a landline phone company was considered a fast-moving, cutting edge technology company?? Not for many decades. Every innovation in telephony service over the past 30 years has come from wireless or Internet telephony companies, both of whom are lightly regulated compared to landline phones. Heavily regulated industries tend to slow down and become conservative; innovation flows around the regulations. You see it in transportation, telecomm, banking, power, etc. I'm not saying these are winning arguments--the world is obviously different now than it was 10 or 20 years ago--but they are not easily dismissed either.