3 ms·

The basic free market case against net neutrality rules is articulated pretty well here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702044883045744271706180030

by grellas 17y ago

The basic free market case against net neutrality rules is articulated pretty well here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427170618003020.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020448830457442....

ubernostrum 17y ago
I stopped reading at this line: "The new policy is a big political victory for Google and other Web content providers whose business model depends on free-loading off the huge capital investments in broadband made by others." Anyone who could write that either is not in possession of the facts, or has chosen to disregard the facts. Lies and inaccuracies do not a cogent argument make. Unless I'm misunderstanding, and your point was to claim that free-market arguments must be based on lies?
- tptacek 17y ago
  Instead of just saying "liar, liar", maybe you yourself could form a cogent argument about how the article is wrong. I'm likely to agree with the argument you come up with. I'm just pointing out: you haven't come up with anything yet.
  - aaronblohowiak 17y ago
    How is there any freeloading going on? Where can you get free bandwidth? Oh that's right.. you can't. You have to have agreements with people to connect to their network. It is like you have have an agreement with bob and i have an agreement with bob, but you're saying that I'm freeloading off of you -- even though nobody is going against any preexisting agreement.
  - bluedanieru 17y ago
    Pointing out that another party isn't arguing in good faith isn't unfair. The case for net neutrality is pretty clear cut and doesn't need to be laid out in full every time someone posts an article, especially from a useless rag like the Wall Street Journal.
  - camccann 17y ago
    Google pays for internet connection to their servers. Google's users pay for their own internet connections, in order to have access to websites (such as Google). Calling Google a free-loader when not only is it already paying for what it uses, but when its existence itself contributes substantially to the value of connecting to the internet is beyond wildly inaccurate and wandering into either delusion or dishonesty. It'd be like getting three paragraphs into a scientific paper and finding a reference to creationism as "a scientific theory with strong support"; it undermines the credibility of the article so badly that it's not unreasonable to question the value of reading further.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      First, Google "probably" doesn't buy bandwidth on a level playing field with the rest of the market (people have tried to suss this out of their financial disclosures, but it's also common sense). Second, Google buys a specific kind of bandwidth. Last mile costs dominate over backbone costs. Finally, and from a political perspective most simply: they're AT&T's circuits, AT&T's DSLAMs, AT&T's routers, and AT&T's operating expenditures. They should be able to do with them what they want. On that last point, even though I support net neutrality, I sympathize pretty strongly with the argument. At what point does the government get to say "your business is so important that we're going to start regulating how you price it even though you operate in a competitive market"? I want to say clearly that I agree with you that Google isn't in fact "freeloading", and I think the argument the op-ed makes for that claim is dubious. But I don't think you can declare, cut-and-dry, that it's a bad-faith argument.
      - camccann 17y ago
        However much Google is paying, one has to assume that it's "enough" in some sense, in that someone is selling it to them on a voluntary basis. Last mile costs to reach customers would, presumably, be paid for by the customer's subscription fees. If a company is losing money selling internet access to customers I don't see how the failure of their pricing structure is Google's fault. Also, large amounts of infrastructure were created back when AT&T was a government-backed national monopoly, and even today one would have to be extremely charitable to describe the US telecommunications market as "competitive". Not to mention that there's a strong argument to be made that access to communication is so vitally important to society (in the sense of having very large positive externalities) as to justify government intervention, but that's a largely separate issue. I like market solutions as much as anyone else but in a market that's already, and perhaps inherently, deeply dysfunctional it's not obvious that "less regulation" means better overall results. Markets and economies do not exist to be decorative or to promote political goals, they exist to create value for society, a point that seems to be lost on many people on all sides of the political spectrum. Anyway, I'm not claiming that it's clearly an argument in bad faith--it probably isn't. What I'm claiming is that the statement is sufficiently absurd to cast doubt on the reasoning of the entire article, and having since read the entire article I saw little to persuade me otherwise.
- grellas 17y ago
  I think the main point of the op-ed is, in essence, that it is dangerous to allow government regulators to become the traffic cop of the Internet. That is the free-market case. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean it is based on lies (though the Google reference is a cheap shot). It is a philosophical disagreement: one either has faith in centralized authority being benign and protective or one is skeptical of that premise. The free-market view is skeptical and doesn't just assume that government regulation will wind up being benign. Once established, the only limit to such authority is . . . nothing more than the discretion of the regulators themselves (what has the FCC done to warrant placing faith in its future decisions in this manner?). Government mandates tend to morph over time and they are backed by institutional power as to which individuals are often powerless to resist. There is no gain in freedom when a society cedes control in ever-larger amounts to a central authority without proper checks on such authority. Again, anyone is free to disagree. But this is a principled position that reasonable people can adopt, and it has nothing to do with being a shill for AT&T or any other telco. Remember, what government can regulate, it can also tax. Will that be a benign outcome if some future administration starts to tax the hell out of Internet-based transactions? What principled argument is left once it is ceded that this is the government's domain to do with it what it will (whether on behalf of some lobbying group or not), even if this means stepping on the property rights of companies or individuals. I realize I am going against the grain here when it comes to what is obviously a tidal wave of emotional support for this initiative within this community. But what spirit of comity exists when it cannot even be conceded that reasonable minds can differ on such an issue?

by grellas 17y ago

ubernostrum 17y ago

I stopped reading at this line: "The new policy is a big political victory for Google and other Web content providers whose business model depends on free-loading off the huge capital investments in broadband made by others." Anyone who could write that either is not in possession of the facts, or has chosen to disregard the facts. Lies and inaccuracies do not a cogent argument make. Unless I'm misunderstanding, and your point was to claim that free-market arguments must be based on lies?

tptacek 17y ago
Instead of just saying "liar, liar", maybe you yourself could form a cogent argument about how the article is wrong. I'm likely to agree with the argument you come up with. I'm just pointing out: you haven't come up with anything yet.
- aaronblohowiak 17y ago
  How is there any freeloading going on? Where can you get free bandwidth? Oh that's right.. you can't. You have to have agreements with people to connect to their network. It is like you have have an agreement with bob and i have an agreement with bob, but you're saying that I'm freeloading off of you -- even though nobody is going against any preexisting agreement.
- bluedanieru 17y ago
  Pointing out that another party isn't arguing in good faith isn't unfair. The case for net neutrality is pretty clear cut and doesn't need to be laid out in full every time someone posts an article, especially from a useless rag like the Wall Street Journal.
- camccann 17y ago
  Google pays for internet connection to their servers. Google's users pay for their own internet connections, in order to have access to websites (such as Google). Calling Google a free-loader when not only is it already paying for what it uses, but when its existence itself contributes substantially to the value of connecting to the internet is beyond wildly inaccurate and wandering into either delusion or dishonesty. It'd be like getting three paragraphs into a scientific paper and finding a reference to creationism as "a scientific theory with strong support"; it undermines the credibility of the article so badly that it's not unreasonable to question the value of reading further.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    First, Google "probably" doesn't buy bandwidth on a level playing field with the rest of the market (people have tried to suss this out of their financial disclosures, but it's also common sense). Second, Google buys a specific kind of bandwidth. Last mile costs dominate over backbone costs. Finally, and from a political perspective most simply: they're AT&T's circuits, AT&T's DSLAMs, AT&T's routers, and AT&T's operating expenditures. They should be able to do with them what they want. On that last point, even though I support net neutrality, I sympathize pretty strongly with the argument. At what point does the government get to say "your business is so important that we're going to start regulating how you price it even though you operate in a competitive market"? I want to say clearly that I agree with you that Google isn't in fact "freeloading", and I think the argument the op-ed makes for that claim is dubious. But I don't think you can declare, cut-and-dry, that it's a bad-faith argument.
    - camccann 17y ago
      However much Google is paying, one has to assume that it's "enough" in some sense, in that someone is selling it to them on a voluntary basis. Last mile costs to reach customers would, presumably, be paid for by the customer's subscription fees. If a company is losing money selling internet access to customers I don't see how the failure of their pricing structure is Google's fault. Also, large amounts of infrastructure were created back when AT&T was a government-backed national monopoly, and even today one would have to be extremely charitable to describe the US telecommunications market as "competitive". Not to mention that there's a strong argument to be made that access to communication is so vitally important to society (in the sense of having very large positive externalities) as to justify government intervention, but that's a largely separate issue. I like market solutions as much as anyone else but in a market that's already, and perhaps inherently, deeply dysfunctional it's not obvious that "less regulation" means better overall results. Markets and economies do not exist to be decorative or to promote political goals, they exist to create value for society, a point that seems to be lost on many people on all sides of the political spectrum. Anyway, I'm not claiming that it's clearly an argument in bad faith--it probably isn't. What I'm claiming is that the statement is sufficiently absurd to cast doubt on the reasoning of the entire article, and having since read the entire article I saw little to persuade me otherwise.
grellas 17y ago
I think the main point of the op-ed is, in essence, that it is dangerous to allow government regulators to become the traffic cop of the Internet. That is the free-market case. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean it is based on lies (though the Google reference is a cheap shot). It is a philosophical disagreement: one either has faith in centralized authority being benign and protective or one is skeptical of that premise. The free-market view is skeptical and doesn't just assume that government regulation will wind up being benign. Once established, the only limit to such authority is . . . nothing more than the discretion of the regulators themselves (what has the FCC done to warrant placing faith in its future decisions in this manner?). Government mandates tend to morph over time and they are backed by institutional power as to which individuals are often powerless to resist. There is no gain in freedom when a society cedes control in ever-larger amounts to a central authority without proper checks on such authority. Again, anyone is free to disagree. But this is a principled position that reasonable people can adopt, and it has nothing to do with being a shill for AT&T or any other telco. Remember, what government can regulate, it can also tax. Will that be a benign outcome if some future administration starts to tax the hell out of Internet-based transactions? What principled argument is left once it is ceded that this is the government's domain to do with it what it will (whether on behalf of some lobbying group or not), even if this means stepping on the property rights of companies or individuals. I realize I am going against the grain here when it comes to what is obviously a tidal wave of emotional support for this initiative within this community. But what spirit of comity exists when it cannot even be conceded that reasonable minds can differ on such an issue?