Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Net Neutrality II (2014)

igmchicago.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: Net Neutrality II (2014)

#21

Post by geezerjay »

njarboe wrote: post #10

Old study and bad title. Article published May 6th, 2014. The majority actually don't agree with the question of: "Considering both distributional effects and changes in efficiency, it is a good idea to let companies that send video or other content to consumers pay more to Internet service providers for the right to send that traffic using faster or higher quality service." The majority are found in the combined gro…

That question is also very loaded. Paying for higher speeds is only about higher data transfer rates. That doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality as, which in fact only imposes artificial restrictions on cherry-picked aspects affecting data communication. In fact, someone could answer "strongly agree" by interpreting that a company or customer would switch their perfectly neutral internet service for a higher tier one or even invest in building their own network.

Re: Net Neutrality II (2014)

#22

Post by mtgx »

Majority of economists also prefer a fully private healthcare market over single-payer government-paid healthcare. How is that working out for the U.S. right now?

The two situations are kind of similar because in both cases the economists prefer "market efficiency" (so they say) over the poor (in this case startup companies) being able to afford the services that the rich (in this case big companies) can afford.

All that matters to them is "efficiency" in the sense that the rich can get to pay say $1,000,000 per year and get a super-efficient service back for their money, while the poor could only afford to pay $1,000 a year but also get "great value for their money" (just nowhere near what those people who pay $1,000,000 get).

In their minds this is great, because "efficiency" is the same. The only difference is that the rich would be able to get the best cures for say cancer, while the poor will die, because $1,000 can't buy them the cures.

Re: Net Neutrality II (2014)

#23

Post by imtringued »

saas_co_de wrote: post #2

Economists think that you should let markets set prices. shocking. What is strange is all these free market people in tech who only like free markets that don't apply to them.

Anti net neutrality is anti-competitive. A world in which you have to ask for permission of the incubent companies is the farthest you could possibly get from a free market.

Re: Net Neutrality II (2014)

#24

Post by intended »

esqrama wrote: post #13

A good economics analysis of NN http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=10750

The good author would perhaps be more open to discussing this point

> Meaning that it is unlikely that market power problems are so acute in this market as to justify regulations unheard of in other markets where price discrimination is widely practiced.

If the question were flipped.

Perhaps it not that NN is a unique regulation, and perhaps it is that many other industries also require net neutrality style provisions.

(I doubt there are many truly comparable industries. And all economic defenses underplay the last mile issue or say that WiFi/mobile is good enough.)

Can someone correct me - has there been underinvestment in American telecom infrastructure?

Re: Net Neutrality II (2014)

#25

Post by krrrh »

mtgx wrote: post #22

Majority of economists also prefer a fully private healthcare market over single-payer government-paid healthcare. How is that working out for the U.S. right now? The two situations are kind of similar because in both cases the economists prefer "market efficiency" (so they say) over the poor (in this case startup companies) being able to afford the services that the rich (in this case big companies) can afford. All…

> Majority of economists also prefer a fully private healthcare market over single-payer government-paid healthcare. How is that working out for the U.S. right now?

It’s tough to say; there hasn’t been anything close to a fully private healthcare system for decades, at least since employer-provided healthcare became a tax-free benefit. For some rather large populations such as the poor (Medicaid), the elderly (Medicare), and veterans (VA) systems exist that are comparable to what we call single-payer in other countries.

Without a reference I don’t believe you that most economists prefer a fully private healthcare system, but few think the current system is very well-designed or functioning.

Re: Net Neutrality II (2014)

#26

Post by averagewall »

alexasmyths wrote: post #18
saas_co_de wrote: post #2

Economists think that you should let markets set prices. shocking. What is strange is all these free market people in tech who only like free markets that don't apply to them.

No, absolutely not. In the ultimate 'free market' - your healthcare would be priced based on your earnings, and it would be ~90% of your after tax take home pay. Why? Because you'll pay. There's good reason we generally don't allow price discrimination, or things like collusion, it's not rocket science. If the Telcos could price discriminate willy nilly over the information that goes through their pipes - then 100% o…

> it would be ~90% of your after tax take home pay. Why? Because you'll pay.

What's to stop a competitor offering it for 89%? And so on until the market finds its fair price.

Re: Net Neutrality II (2014)

#28

Post by nothrabannosir »

soVeryTired wrote: post #19

Bunch of muppets with advanced expertise in what amounts to convex optimisation theory. What exactly qualifies them to weigh in on how the internet should be run?

This is a very alienating position. If I were ever to find myself part of a group, talked about as you did, it would be very tempting to just write off the entire “other group” and their opinion, based purely on that statement.

If you have a good argument to make, why resort to an ad hominem?

For better or for worse, this is a democracy and their point of view matters. Let’s try winning them over to ours.

Re: Net Neutrality II (2014)

#29

Post by tannerwj »

averagewall wrote: post #27

Instead of demanding net neutrality, why don't Americans want rule changes that would enable competition among ISPs? Wouldn't that solve many more problems - like low speeds and high prices as well?

Exactly. Why do they all want more regulation to solve the problem that over regulation caused in the first place? Seems like a cyclical solution to me

Re: Net Neutrality II (2014)

#30

Post by tom_mellior »

The question is explicitly about paying more for "faster or higher quality service". Yet at least two of these economists (who voted "agree") seem to misunderstand the issue: Altonji writes "High bandwidth traffic imposes externalities on other users", which is true, but it's an argument in favor of charging per amount of data, not based on speed promised. Same for Thaler's "Seems like those who cause congestion should pay more" (to be fair, he put confidence 1). So... not impressed by these arguments.

Also, Duffie: "Works for soap, wine, and haircuts; why not Internet?". If that's the level of argument needed to become Distinguished Professor at Stanford, I'm clearly in the wrong field.

Post reply on HN