Net Neutrality... My take..Maybe im Wrong?

[Blade of Grass]

These antitrust laws are part of the regulatory legislation that Im talking about. Yes, it might be against the law to alter your search engine in a way that filters out competitors. and, even though it sounds great, it is a BS law. Again, Google is a privatde business and they dont have any obligation to provide you with anything, If they want to filter, let them! Its their software and infrastructure. These laws are unjust, even though you might not agree with me. You see, I want government out fo the economy. ISPs have been granted money from the government and have special rights that others dont have. tha is the other side of the coin. Most of the arguments being made for regulagion, and NN (Net Neutrality) arise from the fact that people know these subsidies exist, and now they want something back. Which is perfectly reasonable. 

The poblem I have is that instead of handing out subsidies and then later regulation businesses, we could let the market decide in the first place. I dont see anyone who is unhappy with food prices, Why? Because here, regulation has been kept to a minimum, and competition has created a plethora of options with very consumer frriendly prices. 

The only reason I can think of why I would ever support more regulation is because I think that my alternative is far too radical and unlikely to succeed. So even thought I dont like it, it might be the best practical solution to regulate them even more.

 

 

You say they should not oversell their capabilities or invest properly, but these are vague terms. What is the "proper amount to invest" ? Again, whether you like the service you get or not is the only criteria that applies, and if you dont, you can switch.

 

And here we are back again at the core of the probem: In some areas, there is no competiton. We may disargee why that is the case, but I assume we both think that is the most crucialpart of the problem?

 

 

You also claim that business is only competitive if they want to be. Well then, why isnt your cheeseburger 10 dollars? Because there are 100 places you can get one from. business is about your own profit, and if 10 companies agree to price fixing, the eleventh can get rich by taking a huge share of the market by lowering prices.

Price fixing is only possible in a market that is not open to competition, and the only examples for that are heavily regulated, like ISPs or banks.

 

In a free market, price fixing is impossible to maintain and there is not ONE SINGLE example of price fixing in a largely free market.

 

My position on this issue is so different because omy perception of the economy is different. Im an Objectivist (Ayn Rand), and most people have no idea how markets work or how they are affected by regulation.

 

Maybe this is of topic, but if you ever find the time, please read this book: "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell.

 

Read it, and you will understand me better.

 

 

Sorry if this seem rushed, Im currently on the train on my way to work and only have a limited amount of time, since I also want to reply to other comments,

On the topic of food, at least here in Canada, it is pretty heavily regulated by the government, and the industry is still prosperous.

 

I wouldn't say it's vague. Not overselling is extremely specific. If you have 2 apples, and you sell 3, you've oversold. It's not you might have oversold, or kind of oversold, it's you had less product than you said you did and can no longer give what you said.

A "proper" amount to invest (to me) would be the amount required to allow your network to run at the capabilities that you've sold it as. So if you sell 50Mb/s to 50 customers, you should invest enough that your network can at least handle 2.5Gb/s, if it can't, you haven't invested enough.

 

In the ideal world/market, I would think that perfect competition would be beneficial (not to say that there shouldn't be any regulation on business though). 

 

 

 

Maybe this is of topic, but if you ever find the time, please read this book: "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell.

 

Read it, and you will understand me better.

 

I understand you perfectly, but just because I don't agree with your views doesn't mean you should write a pretentious comment saying I don't understand economics.  :rolleyes:

Seeing as you have such a grasp on economics, you therefore must understand that perfect competition doesn't exists? 

 

 

 

Until now there is no Net Neutrality and still, we can see new sites pop up every day. No one uses Myspace or ICQ anymore, and the same will happen to FB. The alck of Net Neutrality hasnt stopped Linus or Twitter or PCPER or basically any site you know and love.

Strangely, NN proponents always try to paint a scary future where doom awaits us all. It hasnt happened yet and it will not happen. Unless we start using atomic bombs again, of course, but thats another topic.

 

 

Why would Free Speech be endagered if it is harder to access certain information. If youre rich you can pay millions of dollars to get your point of view presented in the media; good luck with that on an average salary.

 

Small companies today face the same challenges they did 50 years ago: Their names are not established and they dont have the same ressources like the big names. Still, new companies rise every year. We dont need Net Neutraliry for that.

Before you can provide anything that comes even close to being relevant for data charges, like NetFlix, youre already a huge company.

I dont see how Net Neutrality would help smaller sites.

You also ignore other important factors, Even when Net Neutralty is enforced, you still cant provide the same service as big names like Amazon, simply because they can invest millions into servers. Do you want to regulate that as well? 

 

I feel like im a broken record repeating this: Net Neutrality is not the cure. Its like 2 doctors arguing over which colour the plaster should have while the patient is bleeding to death.

We need to seperate government from business, sto handing out favours, stop bailing out banks or the auto industry, stop giving money to so caled green jobs.

We should bring more power back to local institutions and let the market decide, instead of who can play the Washington-Game better.

 

There are net neutrality laws in Canada, and there were in the states. The issue is that a court in the states ruled their laws to be unconstitutional and gave the FCC time to rewrite them. Then the ISPs came in and lobbied for the laws to be completely changed to allow them to make these fast lanes.

For reference, the Canadian law states: 

"no Canadian carrier can "unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage."" (source)

 

So yes, net neutrality has been a big component of the internet for a long time and we've yet to hear anyone have an issue with it, until ISPs realised they can squeeze more money out of consumers and businesses knowing they can't do anything about it.

[TheLongWay]

You have mentioned cheap safe food a few times and I have to ask if you realize that the USA food production is one of the most subsidized and regulated industries in the country. The only reason food is cheap here is because the feds buy all corn produced at a higher value than that of the open market, and the purchase is guaranteed. Our cheap meat exists solely because of these corn subsidies and the Midwestern soil quality and water table have been devastated because of it. The US food industry is anything but a free open market.

 

The ISPs are using infrastructure paid for in part by public money. There used to operate under title II "utility" status in the early 2000's and guess what? There were multiple ISPs to choose from and they had to offer a good value or lose business. Immediately after being reclassified as title one "information services", ISP's blocked out the small guys from having access to the infrastructure. Consumers all of a sudden had only one choice, Cable or DSL internet but no choice over what company provides that service.

 

I am not arguing whether an open market is good or bad in a particular instance, but I find it funny that the consumer did have more choices when the ISPs were operating under a "utility" classification compared to today. Now the ISPs are throwing their weight around speaking out against NN claiming a re-reclassification back under title II would magically do the opposite of what it provided to consumers 15 years ago. The ISPs now even have legal precedence in some situations to block municipalities from deploying their own infrastructure and creating a local government ISP; how does that help anybody?

 

Sorry that it took so long, between Christmas and my work I had little time to hang out in forums.

 

I mostly agree with you.

 

I am aware that the US subsidises their farms, which is absurd, but just another way the government messes up the economy. I would argue that food would be cheaper if the government would not interfere in the distribution of capital, but thats another debate. Also, there are many products that dont receive any subsidies and are still very affordable.

 

My point is: ISPs suck, yet they still have massive market shares. Why? How can that be? Because theres an unholy marriage between ISPs, government and Lobbyists that keeps competiton out.

THAT is the problem, not NN or some talk about public utitlies.

[TheLongWay]

On the topic of food, at least here in Canada, it is pretty heavily regulated by the government, and the industry is still prosperous.

 

I wouldn't say it's vague. Not overselling is extremely specific. If you have 2 apples, and you sell 3, you've oversold. It's not you might have oversold, or kind of oversold, it's you had less product than you said you did and can no longer give what you said.

A "proper" amount to invest (to me) would be the amount required to allow your network to run at the capabilities that you've sold it as. So if you sell 50Mb/s to 50 customers, you should invest enough that your network can at least handle 2.5Gb/s, if it can't, you haven't invested enough.

 

In the ideal world/market, I would think that perfect competition would be beneficial (not to say that there shouldn't be any regulation on business though). 

 

 

I understand you perfectly, but just because I don't agree with your views doesn't mean you should write a pretentious comment saying I don't understand economics.  :rolleyes:

Seeing as you have such a grasp on economics, you therefore must understand that perfect competition doesn't exists? 

 

 

There are net neutrality laws in Canada, and there were in the states. The issue is that a court in the states ruled their laws to be unconstitutional and gave the FCC time to rewrite them. Then the ISPs came in and lobbied for the laws to be completely changed to allow them to make these fast lanes.

For reference, the Canadian law states: 

"no Canadian carrier can "unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage."" (source)

 

So yes, net neutrality has been a big component of the internet for a long time and we've yet to hear anyone have an issue with it, until ISPs realised they can squeeze more money out of consumers and businesses knowing they can't do anything about it.

Sorry that it took so long, work has been killing me - Im doing 70 hour weeks and I did not find any time to reply here.

 

What do you mean by "perfect competiton"? Perfect competiton can exist if there are laws that protect private contracts and police to enforce them and keep fraudsters away. No additional rules. whoever provides the best service gains market shares. What is impossible is a market, in which everyone has perfect knowledge of all options at all times. Even in free competiton, you might not get the best product.

Please explain what you mean by perfect market,  there are so many concepts of it floating around that Im simply unsure what youre talking about.

 

 

Food:

And yes, the food market is regulated, which is a reason why prices could be lower still, but most governments dont want that. The US especially keeps prices up and/or subsidises certain products.

However, the regulation is not as bad as it is in other sectors. It would be better without though.

There are very different kinds of regulations, but in the food market everyone is affected similiarly, which is why there is no one that can hold massive market shares without providing a good service. Thats the difference to regulation on Internet services, because the big ISPs suck and still dont lose market shares as fast as they would in a free market. If there is a law that every piece of food has to be held by a naked priest, there would still be competiton, because companies are similarly affected by it. The overall result would be an arbitrarily low amount of investment and profits in the food market itself, but the market itself would function. Again: In the case of ISPs, the big ones have massive advantages due to regulation that makes competiton very difficult. They also get subsidies.

 

 

The problem with economics is that their are very different schools of thought, and it can be very hard to compare results between two of them, it is like speaking different languages.

I did not intend tos ound pretentious.

I just really really LOVE this book, because it is understandable and yet not oversimplified. 

 

 

Regarding the proper amount of investment: That is only at the discretion of the company. As long as they dont break their contracts, its fine. The problem is that their contracts are very anti-consumer, yet they still dont lose market shares.

 

 

I still think that the best solution would be: No more subsidies from the government. No more protection through law, or prohibiting others from entering the market, No more crony capitalism. NN might be better than what we have now, although I doubt it, but it is very far from the optimal solution.

[Blade of Grass]

Sorry that it took so long, work has been killing me - Im doing 70 hour weeks and I did not find any time to reply here.

What do you mean by "perfect competiton"? Perfect competiton can exist if there are laws that protect private contracts and police to enforce them and keep fraudsters away. No additional rules. whoever provides the best service gains market shares. What is impossible is a market, in which everyone has perfect knowledge of all options at all times. Even in free competiton, you might not get the best product.

Please explain what you mean by perfect market, there are so many concepts of it floating around that Im simply unsure what youre talking about.

Food:

And yes, the food market is regulated, which is a reason why prices could be lower still, but most governments dont want that. The US especially keeps prices up and/or subsidises certain products.

However, the regulation is not as bad as it is in other sectors. It would be better without though.

There are very different kinds of regulations, but in the food market everyone is affected similiarly, which is why there is no one that can hold massive market shares without providing a good service. Thats the difference to regulation on Internet services, because the big ISPs suck and still dont lose market shares as fast as they would in a free market. If there is a law that every piece of food has to be held by a naked priest, there would still be competiton, because companies are similarly affected by it. The overall result would be an arbitrarily low amount of investment and profits in the food market itself, but the market itself would function. Again: In the case of ISPs, the big ones have massive advantages due to regulation that makes competiton very difficult. They also get subsidies.

The problem with economics is that their are very different schools of thought, and it can be very hard to compare results between two of them, it is like speaking different languages.

I did not intend tos ound pretentious.

I just really really LOVE this book, because it is understandable and yet not oversimplified.

Regarding the proper amount of investment: That is only at the discretion of the company. As long as they dont break their contracts, its fine. The problem is that their contracts are very anti-consumer, yet they still dont lose market shares.

I still think that the best solution would be: No more subsidies from the government. No more protection through law, or prohibiting others from entering the market, No more crony capitalism. NN might be better than what we have now, although I doubt it, but it is very far from the optimal solution.

NP, work comes before play

Although I may not agree completely with your views, I have to agree with some of your points

[ThatAngryGnome]

You should do a 3-5 line summary of your argument for those too lazy to read the whole post, such as myself. 

I like your profile pic...its my background right now      

  

http://imgur.com/EjJQt71

[TheLongWay]

This is not directly related to this topic, but I would like to talk about cost structures and how government affects wages. It has some relevance in this discussion, and I will explain why later on. As you all know, your employer has to pay a lot more than what you get on the pay check- and you have to give some percentage of that to your government. In France, the so called "Lohnnebenkosten" (Thats German and could be translated as "additonal labour costs") are 49 percent. That means that when you get paid 30 euros an hour, your employer actually pays 45 euros. And from those 30 euros, you can keep around 23. On average, your employer pays more than double than what you have after taxes (In France)

 

Even that still does not account for all the additional costs that are imposed by all the regulatary agencies. In the case of the US, these could be 

• (CPSC)
• (EPA)
•  (EEOC)
•  (FAA) 
•  (FDIC)
•  (FTC)
• (FDA)
• (ICC)
• (NLRB)
•  (NRC)
• (OSHA)
•  (SEC)

There are many more, and all of these can block entrepreneurs in many ways, creating costs in the process.

 

Yet somehow the companies are the bad guys, and the government uses this impression to impose even more regulations. The company I work at has calculated, in a very conservative estimate, that they could pay their employees TWICE as much. Let that sink in for a moment.

 

 

How is that relevant to the discussion?

 

Again, the bad companies cannot be trusted, and the good guys from government have a solution that will benefit consumers. I would be sceptical - and so should you.

I have argued before that government usually makes things worse, and often benefits from being incompetent. They impose huge costs on businesses and then use the outrage in the media over low wages to gain more votes by imposing wage laws. They create and protect monopolistic ISPs and then gain votes by blaming these companies.