Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet
theobjectivestandard.com
Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet
1–10 of 50 posts
Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet
#2TLDR: This is exactly what you'd expect ultracapitalist Objectivists to say: ISPs should be allowed to do whatever they want because their networks are private property.
Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet
#3[deleted]
Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet
#4TLDR: This is exactly what you'd expect ultracapitalist Objectivists to say: ISPs should be allowed to do whatever they want because their networks are private property.
Quite. I looked up some other articles by this guy, and his viewpoint is very evident.
Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet
#5TLDR: This is exactly what you'd expect ultracapitalist Objectivists to say: ISPs should be allowed to do whatever they want because their networks are private property.
ISPs networks are not (totally) private property though. They are in many cases publicly subsidized, and they operate with a state-backed grant of monopoly or oligopoly within each region.
IMHO, regardless of what you think of Objectivism or libertarianism, the standard libertarian critique of government interference does not apply to net neutrality. It would apply if telecom were actually a free market and if telcos did not receive large amounts of state support.
Conservatives and most libertarians usually fail the see the distinction between actual private businesses that operate in a free market (e.g. Google, Apple, etc.) and state-backed quasi-private enterprises like telcos. The latter are aptly called "Soviet bureaus."
Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet
#6> Were it not for net neutrality, a start-up ISP might compete against Comcast by configuring its fledgling network to favor Bit Torrent’s peer-to-peer data packets, thereby earning it the business of serious movie downloaders without having to match or exceed Comcast in expensive infrastructure.
Really? If someone advertised their ISP as 'BitTorrent-friendly' they would have to contend with the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, etc trying to sue their company back into the stone-age.
> If an ISP were left alone to manage the transmission of data packets across its property, it could profitably improve the speed of its network, it could profit from charging more for more bandwidth consumption, and it could profit from providing special services to certain customers, such as smoothly streaming high-definition video feeds. But because none of these things is possible under net neutrality’s rules, the property of Internet service providers is worth considerably less to them in terms of its profit potential. Accordingly, their incentive to expand and improve the infrastructure on which the Internet relies is greatly diminished.
The government poured billions into the country's major ISPs to 'upgrade infrastructure' and there was little to no return on that investment. Infrastructure was not upgraded and we are now at a point where ISPs are trying to claim that their networks can no longer handle capacity, so they are forced to do filtering and 'QoS.' Where did all of that money go? Shouldn't the free market have allowed the ISPs to use that money to improve their networks so that they could reap larger rewards from those better built networks?
The problem with trying to treat Internet Service Providers as some sort of 'free market' is that it isn't. There are huge barriers to entry in the market, and well-established incumbents. Most places in the USA only have 1 or 2 choices for internet service. How is this in any way a 'free market' that the government should say out of? In fact, the governments created this mess in the first place by creating phone company and cable company monopolies. Now these telcos preach about how 'the market should be free' just because they have a huge advantage (i.e. established customers and deep-pockets) against any possible competitors. Which is a hypocritical stance seeing as they are where they are today due to government-granted monopolies.
tl;dr The ISP business model:
1. Get the government to give you a lead in the market through a monopoly
2. Grow your business by leaps and bounds during this monopoly period
3. Government opens market
4. Complain that government intervention in the market is evil and lobby
against the government helping out any potential competitorsRe: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet
#7TLDR: This is exactly what you'd expect ultracapitalist Objectivists to say: ISPs should be allowed to do whatever they want because their networks are private property.
That might be true but it's irrelevant. I'd have no objection if you left out the introductory clause.
Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet
#8> Were it not for net neutrality, a start-up ISP might compete against Comcast by configuring its fledgling network to favor Bit Torrent’s peer-to-peer data packets, thereby earning it the business of serious movie downloaders without having to match or exceed Comcast in expensive infrastructure. Really? If someone advertised their ISP as 'BitTorrent-friendly' they would have to contend with the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, etc…
So it seems your problem is with the initial government intervention? So in order to fix that we need more?
Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet
#9TLDR: This is exactly what you'd expect ultracapitalist Objectivists to say: ISPs should be allowed to do whatever they want because their networks are private property.
ISPs networks are not (totally) private property though. They are in many cases publicly subsidized, and they operate with a state-backed grant of monopoly or oligopoly within each region. IMHO, regardless of what you think of Objectivism or libertarianism, the standard libertarian critique of government interference does not apply to net neutrality. It would apply if telecom were actually a free market and if telcos…
I don't think they fail to see the distinction, but instead of further cementing government control they in fact argue that telcos should lose their government privileges and be left to compete in the market. Sure at first they will have significant advantages but as time goes on competition should be able to function.
Re: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet
#10> Were it not for net neutrality, a start-up ISP might compete against Comcast by configuring its fledgling network to favor Bit Torrent’s peer-to-peer data packets, thereby earning it the business of serious movie downloaders without having to match or exceed Comcast in expensive infrastructure. Really? If someone advertised their ISP as 'BitTorrent-friendly' they would have to contend with the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, etc…
So it seems your problem is with the initial government intervention? So in order to fix that we need more?
Limiting what lobbyist and special interest group can squeeze out of government should give a fair shake.