3 ms·

Yes, that is precisely the problem with Net Neutrality. We really don't want ISPs to be common carriers. Keep them private and competitive.

revscat 12y ago
There are downsides to keeping them private that are apparent to most customers of Comcast/AT&T/Time Warner. Nor has there been any indication that the private nature of the telecoms has served to act as a buffer against federal intrusion. If anything, the monolithic and centralized nature of the ISPs has made it easier for the intelligence agencies to get what they want.
01Michael10 12y ago
What are you talking about? The reality is ISPs are not competitive in the US and are monopolies. That won't change overnight either so we need Net Neutrality (ISPs would still be private???) regulation even if temporary right now.
msandford 12y ago
I would agree with you if there was real competition; if I had 5 or 10 or 15 choices in who I got broadband from at reasonable, consumer prices I'd be 100% against any kind of regulation. Personally I'd rather see the federal government overrule states which have made laws against municipal ownership of the last mile. And to start handing out small seed grants to get more places to install fiber everywhere and lease it to whatever company cares to re-sell it. For example I live in Houston where there utility company only owns the power distribution infrastructure. There are 100 (or so) companies that sell power at retail after buying it wholesale. http://www.powertochoose.org/ http://www.powertochoose.org/ I consider that to be excellent competition. Getting to choose between two power companies, however, I would not consider competition.
innguest 12y ago
I'm hearing the following rebuttals: - Comcast/AT&T/Time Warner is not real/enough competition, more like a monopoly This problem could be solved with the antitrust laws already in place. Despite being a libertarian I'm not opposed to breaking up these private monopolies that government policies have made possible. - Being private hasn't protected them against federal intrusion Being private citizens has also not protected us against the NSA spying on us. That does not mean the solution is more government intrusion to offset the existing one. I oppose the federal government overruling state laws in any sense (so I'd rather the laws against municipal ownership of the last mile be abolished by market forces) as that obviously stifles competition between states.
- paulmd 12y ago
  The government isn't responsible for utilities tending towards monopoly - it's a natural outcome of any market with small unit costs and high barriers to entry. For a self-proclaimed libertarian, you're ignoring a very basic tendency of market systems. Natural monopolies are Econ 100 level stuff, and utilities are the textbook example.
  - innguest 12y ago
    > The government isn't responsible for utilities tending towards monopoly - it's a natural outcome of any market with small unit costs and high barriers to entry. Murray Rothbard once said: "In general, I urge everybody to look at a government measure [...] not in terms of a tragic failure to achieve the common good, public interest, or general welfare, but [rather] as a conscious agency for doing all sorts of monopolizing, cartelizing, and other restrictive things. In other words, the government is not that dumb!" If you read about how the FCC came to be and how they were politically set on displacing competitors, you will change your mind. Free markets can't generate monopolies because they can't use the threat of force by hooking up with the government. If you disagree, all you need to do is come forward with a single example of a monopoly that exists without any government backing (regulations, cronyism, etc). And if I were you I'd drop this cliche of "oh this is Econ 101". It doesn't help the conversation and is just a veiled attack. In this case though, since the government influences what gets taught in universities, even Econ 400 isn't enough to understand free markets, and most Econ graduates come out of university with little to no understanding of the Austrian school.
    - ubernostrum 12y ago
      How to keep an Austrian-school believer busy: * Tell them the government should abolish all regulation which interferes with "the free market". * Then remind them that this would be an action taken by a government, and thus by definition the incorrect thing to do.
      - innguest 12y ago
forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
> Keep them private and competitive. Hah!

revscat 12y ago

There are downsides to keeping them private that are apparent to most customers of Comcast/AT&T/Time Warner. Nor has there been any indication that the private nature of the telecoms has served to act as a buffer against federal intrusion. If anything, the monolithic and centralized nature of the ISPs has made it easier for the intelligence agencies to get what they want.

01Michael10 12y ago

What are you talking about? The reality is ISPs are not competitive in the US and are monopolies. That won't change overnight either so we need Net Neutrality (ISPs would still be private???) regulation even if temporary right now.

msandford 12y ago

I would agree with you if there was real competition; if I had 5 or 10 or 15 choices in who I got broadband from at reasonable, consumer prices I'd be 100% against any kind of regulation. Personally I'd rather see the federal government overrule states which have made laws against municipal ownership of the last mile. And to start handing out small seed grants to get more places to install fiber everywhere and lease it to whatever company cares to re-sell it. For example I live in Houston where there utility company only owns the power distribution infrastructure. There are 100 (or so) companies that sell power at retail after buying it wholesale. http://www.powertochoose.org/ http://www.powertochoose.org/ I consider that to be excellent competition. Getting to choose between two power companies, however, I would not consider competition.

innguest 12y ago

I'm hearing the following rebuttals: - Comcast/AT&T/Time Warner is not real/enough competition, more like a monopoly This problem could be solved with the antitrust laws already in place. Despite being a libertarian I'm not opposed to breaking up these private monopolies that government policies have made possible. - Being private hasn't protected them against federal intrusion Being private citizens has also not protected us against the NSA spying on us. That does not mean the solution is more government intrusion to offset the existing one. I oppose the federal government overruling state laws in any sense (so I'd rather the laws against municipal ownership of the last mile be abolished by market forces) as that obviously stifles competition between states.

paulmd 12y ago
The government isn't responsible for utilities tending towards monopoly - it's a natural outcome of any market with small unit costs and high barriers to entry. For a self-proclaimed libertarian, you're ignoring a very basic tendency of market systems. Natural monopolies are Econ 100 level stuff, and utilities are the textbook example.
- innguest 12y ago
  > The government isn't responsible for utilities tending towards monopoly - it's a natural outcome of any market with small unit costs and high barriers to entry. Murray Rothbard once said: "In general, I urge everybody to look at a government measure [...] not in terms of a tragic failure to achieve the common good, public interest, or general welfare, but [rather] as a conscious agency for doing all sorts of monopolizing, cartelizing, and other restrictive things. In other words, the government is not that dumb!" If you read about how the FCC came to be and how they were politically set on displacing competitors, you will change your mind. Free markets can't generate monopolies because they can't use the threat of force by hooking up with the government. If you disagree, all you need to do is come forward with a single example of a monopoly that exists without any government backing (regulations, cronyism, etc). And if I were you I'd drop this cliche of "oh this is Econ 101". It doesn't help the conversation and is just a veiled attack. In this case though, since the government influences what gets taught in universities, even Econ 400 isn't enough to understand free markets, and most Econ graduates come out of university with little to no understanding of the Austrian school.
  - ubernostrum 12y ago
    How to keep an Austrian-school believer busy: * Tell them the government should abolish all regulation which interferes with "the free market". * Then remind them that this would be an action taken by a government, and thus by definition the incorrect thing to do.
    - innguest 12y ago

forgotpasswd3x 12y ago

> Keep them private and competitive. Hah!