Net Neutrality Paradigm Shift

[Crazed Rabbit]

Unless Congress takes specific measures to limit the powers of ISPs soon, expect the telcos to move steadily toward a service model like the one the mobile carriers enjoy now.

Why? They've been able to forever, and net neutrality people have been harping about the supposed 'dangers' for years, but it hasn't happened. So why should we expect it to?

Anyway, here's a blog with a lot of information on it. You know, Lemur, more of the stuff I'm posting that you seem to be completely ignoring :
http://freestatefoundation.blogspot....t%20Neutrality

Some important points:

In his summary and conclusion, Professor Epstein explains that we ought to be able to distinguish between regulations that strengthen markets and those that undermine them, but that there is a long-standing pattern of government's failure to do so. The regulators' proclivities to overreach are often driven by a denigration of property rights and systems of voluntary exchange. So here is how he concludes his chapter:

"A similar pattern is at work in the modern debates over net neutrality. The defense of that position starts out as a plea to end discrimination. Yet there is little evidence that the new dose of regulation will produce any gains in the short run. In the long run, we can expect a repetition of the sorry performance of the FCC (or, for that matter, Congress) with respect to broadcast rights to work its way through the law of net neutrality. The sad truth is that the parties who seek to develop sophisticated and sensible schemes for state control quickly lose control over the administrative process to persons whose ambitions for state control are not bound by any fine-grained rationale. The dangers for this predictable drift usually suffice to err on the side of caution. Stated otherwise, the expected rate of depreciation of sound public norms that rely on administrative discretion is high. There are too many pressure points to keep the rascals at bay. So the recommendation here is to follow classical liberal principles that treat all state intervention as a mistake until it is shown to be a good. More practically, and much to the point of the current public policy debate: Keep private control over broadband pipes by abandoning the siren call for net neutrality."

And as to the idea that companies aren't expanding networks or just hording cash because they are as stupid as the people who invented the net neutrality problem:

Unlike other segments of the economy, even in difficult economic times, just in the last two years the broadband providers have invested over $200 billion of private capital in building out and enhancing their broadband networks, without seeking government guarantees of bailouts.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Anyway, here's a blog with a lot of information on it. You know, Lemur, more of the stuff I'm posting that you seem to be completely ignoring :
http://freestatefoundation.blogspot....t%20Neutrality

I would like to pull a Tribesman and say:


A blog!?! One that specifically states it's a shill for free market ideology! And you want that to be taken seriously!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Have you even read the blog? Perhaps you should before your foot goes farther into your mouth.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Have you even read the blog? Perhaps you should before your foot goes farther into your mouth.

CR

I have read the blog, and it is obvious the guy is an intelligent person, but it's a blog, period. If this guy has posted an argument in a published place with any sort of fact checking instead of him just going off on his blog, then I will take it seriously. Anyone can make an "intelligent" argument with lots of links to "facts" and try to label it as worthy as an opinion piece in Newsweek.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'd take most blogs of any political persuasion over a Newsweek opinion piece.

It seems like you're not even giving the arguments any thought. If you don't think he checks his facts, then find what's incorrect. If his arguments are false, then refute them.

But don't entirely dismiss them because you don't agree with them. The validity of an argument is not determined by whether or not it's written in Newsweek.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'd take most blogs of any political persuasion over a Newsweek opinion piece.

It seems like you're not even giving the arguments any thought. If you don't think he checks his facts, then find what's incorrect. If his arguments are false, then refute them.

But don't entirely dismiss them because you don't agree with them. The validity of an argument is not determined by whether or not it's written in Newsweek.

CR

No, but you have to admit that the ratio between intelligent:idiotic arguments on blogs is the exact opposite then in Newsweek.

Any way, at this point in the argument is where I see that no progress is going to be made here. You and Xiahou have been saying the same thing and so have we. Any "proof" we show is just going to be nit picked by each of us. You two can keep thinking that government is out to get you, and let companies walk all over you for the sake of keeping the free market alive and I'll keep thinking my own out of touch ideologies.

It's saturday night and it feels like an Arby's then lolcatz night.

[Husar]

Any way, at this point in the argument is where I see that no progress is going to be made here.

Let's be fair here, progress could be made if you did what CR said and tried to refute the arguments in that blog, but because you're stubborn and close-minded, you're also right and progress cannot be made.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You two can keep thinking that government is out to get you, and let companies walk all over you for the sake of keeping the free market alive and I'll keep thinking my own out of touch ideologies.

The point I've been trying to make this whole thread is that companies aren't walking over anybody. All the dangers about not having net neutrality ARE JUST SPECULATION.

I see the internet as the conservative dream come true.

Well then don't believe the net neutrality people who harp on non-existent problems.

If there really will be a problem because we don't have net neutrality, then let's go on without regulation until we see the problem. And then, we can think about regulation designed for the actual problems.

That's simple logic.

And ACIN, if we're blocked, it's because you ignored my post with the blog link and tried (and failed) to pull a tribesy. You've been going on about how you think the corporations are idiots and won't invest in their networks, and then I show you how they've invested hundreds of billions of dollars in the past couple of years. And that goes for a lot of other examples you've given, like that the internet was an ignored market in the last decade. Sometimes, ACIN, I think you aren't getting your views on corporations from the right source. Take this for example:

No, companies have only realized recently the power that the internet provides consumers and they are afraid of it and are now attempting to stop it.

That makes no sense, it's like it came from the latest issue of socialist monthly. How in the world could companies only recently realize the power of the internet? Were they on drugs the last 15 years?

And why would the ISPs be afraid of the internet giving the consumers more power to choose? If the internet is more important to consumers, then they will use more of it, which is good for the ISPs. See, this is the bit that really doesn't make sense; the idea that the ISPs would not like consumers having power seems to be based on the idea that corporations are evil or out to gain power or control over people, or that their interests always go against the consumer.

There's no reason to think any of that, because corporations are in it for profit. And profit comes from satisfied consumers (unless they get the government to prevent people from choosing or to give them an edge somehow).

The whole idea that ISPs want to stop consumers from using the power the internet has given them is stupid as well. First of all, they've known how the internet has affected people for a decade and haven't tried to stop it. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason for them to try and stop people from using the internet to their advantage. There's no reason behind it.

So if to pay for VoIP is to pay for your use of 3G, what it the usual monthly bill to pay for? To pay for your use of 3G, yet again?

If all iPhone users used VoIP, the network physically couldn't handle it. So how else would you prevent the network from deteriorating for everybody using it because to much traffic is traveling on it?

CR