Net Neutrality - My perspective

[TheLongWay]

This is a long post, with a controversial opinion and I would be happy if you read what I have to say, instead of just dismissing my views entirely without at least trying to understand them. Thank you.

 

 

One of the reasons why I subscribed to Linus was due to my love for podcasts, especially tech podcasts like pc.per or teksyndicate. I also appreciate that Linus and Luke usuallly keep it non-political -- but they cant get around Net Neutrality and have taken a very strong position regarding this issue. I, however, think that Net Neutrality (NN) not only fails to address the most important problems with ISPs, it also has the potential to have very negative effects for consumers and businesses alike, and it seems to me like two physicians debating over which colour the plaster should have while the patient is bleeding to death.

 

 

 

One of the complains is that ISPs are not in a competitive environment and can thus escape market pressures by exploiting their unique position. That is true to some extent. But the question is how that came to be. The answer is that from the very beginning electronic communication services were never really private, they were always financed by goverment and the resulting "companies" are more or less state/private hybrids. Over the decades, this relationship has resulted in a what is generally called regulatory capture. Since government favours gave some companies, usually those that contribute to some campaign, special advantages, these companies tend to behave badly and offer bad services, since they are not suspect to normal market pressures. In order to "solve" this problem, government steps in and starts to regulate these businesses. It should come as no surprise that the existing firms have a vested interest in influencing these regulations so as to enable them to keep competiton out, which is exactly what happened in the US. The regulators are often "experts" from the very businesses they are supposed to regulate. The result is a very static system in which the big established corporations keep syphoning subsidies while controlling the regulators to keep competition out. 

 

I know that the internet is essential, but so is food, and we dont need regulators to control food prices, because there is competiton. Regulation is always just a plaster on a festering wound, and can often achieve the opposite of what was orginally intended. we dont want the government to have another way to control the internet, but NN can be or become just that, Who knows what is in the actual bills that are being passed? Very few.

 

 

Regulations dont protect us. In my hometown in France, as small company tried to provide internet services for those who were unhappy with the poor service of the established ISP for our region. The data was to be transferred wireless over radio-equipment (not sure how if this is the right word for it), so there was no trouble regarding tearing up roads. Basically, all equipment could be installed on private property and no one would be bothered by it. It all sounded great until the regulators stepped in. It took 4 years to get legal permission for the business to start, and even that was faster than usual, since many of the locals were extremely involved with the project and pushed hard for it to be realised.

 

Had there been no regulatory overhead, simple competition would have forced the established ISP to provide better service or lose customers. 

This is a small scale example, but I hope you can understand how difficult it can be to compete with the big ISPs, not because they provide good service, but rather because they have been around for so long and have contacts in the political sphere.

NN doesnt change any of that. In the best case scenario, it forces ISPs to behave less like total asshats. Aside from some local ISPs and maybe Google, there is still not really any competiton.

 

This is also not simply a result of the market. The government has handed out monopoly rights to these companies, along with subsidies, because they are willing to build the basic infrastructure we now have. Again, the involvement of government results in long term negative consequences.

 

 

What should we do instead? No more special rights! No more subsidies! No more corporate welfare! Allow competition and all the problems you rightfully complain about will go away in a few years.

NN is just a plaster, not the solution.

 

For a very detailed look at NN, consider watching this video 

 

 

[Brawhammer]

One hour 18 minutes.

 

I'd rather just hate comcast. That takes 5 seconds and can be done with ease.

 

On a more serious note. Regulation is needed to bring networks into the 21st century. Problems like ISPS not giving a fuck is because they don't need to give a fuck. 97% profit margins and everything else going on is BS.

 

I welcome regulations so as long as those regulations are put in place by the population and not corporations bank accounts.

[Leonard]

okay.

 

--cut--

 

I welcome regulations so as long as those regulations are put in place by the population and not corporations bank accounts.

You do mean sensible moral filled members of the population and not just any nut with a mouth, right? If so i concur.

 

I also would like to add that ISPs should have a standard regarding upload and download speeds and not just what they want to give.

[CostcoSamples]

Thank you, and this is an excellent video everyone should watch.  Governments need to get out of the way and stop enabling the monopolies!  

[TheLongWay]

No. We did not need regulations to get the internet in the 21st century. One of the reasons why the internet is so great and great channels like Linustechtips can prosper is because the internet is relatively free of regulations, You can innovate all you want without thousands of pages of regulations you have to adhere to. It is not a coincidence that most innovation comes in areas of the economy where there are fewer regulations, like software.

 

I agree that something has to change, but the would not be more regulations, but rather a rebirth of real competiton, instead of crony capitalism with a bandaid on it, called NN

[CostcoSamples]

One hour 18 minutes.

 

I'd rather just hate comcast. That takes 5 seconds and can be done with ease.

 

On a more serious note. Regulation is needed to bring networks into the 21st century. Problems like ISPS not giving a fuck is because they don't need to give a fuck. 97% profit margins and everything else going on is BS.

 

I welcome regulations so as long as those regulations are put in place by the population and not corporations bank accounts.

Free markets can regular far better than some paid-off politician.

[Toddwjp]

the greatest trick the rightwing ever pulled was getting the general population to tie the word regulation with negative language.

[CostcoSamples]

the greatest trick the rightwing ever pulled was getting the general population to tie the word regulation with negative language

Language is a government program, don't you know.  Welcome to the Matrix that is government propaganda.

[TheLongWay]

the greatest trick the rightwing ever pulled was getting the general population to tie the word regulation with negative language

 I'm certainly not Rightwing. Also, you dont offer any arguments here. The close relationship between electronic communication service providers and the government is not really controversial, and the fact that governments helped to create cartels in order to quickly build infrastructure can be read on wikipedia, so thats also not really controversial. Please at least try to offer an argument.

[Toddwjp]

 I'm certainly not Rightwing. Also, you dont offer any arguments here. The close relationship between electronic communication service providers and the government is not really controversial, and the fact that governments helped to create cartels in order to quickly build infrastructure can be read on wikipedia, so thats also not really controversial. Please at least try to offer an argument.

 

im not calling you rightwing, but the rightwing in many country's have portrayed regulation as bad and thus have convince people on all sides that it is.

 

Examples people give of regulation going bad is merely examples of bad regulation. good regulation does exist and protects us from many things. health and safety regulation may seem over the top in some places and occasional it does go a little to far but that's better then not going far enough. For example in the uk if a business like a super market is cleaning its floors it needs to have a wet floor sign up. some people say that this is stupid but for people who are not 100% on there feet this gives ample warning that they should take extra care. we also have the EU food standards to adhere too, this ensures that all food sold here is suitable for consumption.

 

You claim that regulation is an issue and that it is a problem, however there's several major issues with the idea that free markets are a good thing.

 

First, they have no empirical basis. Studies uses by the business organisations claiming to show that regulation is costly and negatively impact's society only ever do so by excluding certain benefits to society from there calculations, such as lower health care costs resulting from anti-pollution measures.  Likewise, studies showing that regulations negatively impact jobs do so only by ignoring jobs gained in other sectors. 

 

Isaac Shapiro, the author of the EPI report that im about to paraphrase (link to the quick overview of said report 

http://www.epi.org/publication/quick-guide-epi-research-regulation/)this report finds that the benefits of regulation have always exceeded there costs and that the evidence that they have a negative effect on employment is also false. if anything they show a net zero or slight increase in jobs.

 

second, the argument is faulty because of oversimplification of how markets behave. for example all models of the free market require that all parties to market transactions are knowledgeable,  however one very easy way to see that this isnt the case in the real world is that of the consumer or the buyer. to be considered knowledgeable a person buying a car would have to be able to know if the car will function properly and also what any of the fine print in the financial agreement means. (yes they can research this but the number of people who don't and the number of cases where you simply cant find out all the information as a consumer maintain this point) i don't think i need to go on much more about how a model that requires all knowledgeable parties isn't applicable to the real world.

 

Regulation is also required when there are unacceptable consequences resulting from market actors bear a toll on society, for example air pollution or failure to provide access for the disabled.

 

another example of over simplification is that they many times overlook the more complex ways a market moves and works. yes the cost of regulation may increase costs for a business leading to higher prices which in turn creates less demand for products  and so less demand for labour (to make said products) however this ignores the facts that this demand will simply move to a different sector. for example,  if prices rise and sales decline at fast food restaurants, sales and employment will likely pick up in other sectors as people eat at home more.

 

This is not to say that government regulation is always desirable, or that existing regulations are well-suited to their purposes. Rules may be obsolete, excessively burdensome, or costly, just as they may be too weak, or ineffectively enforced.  Rule-making in democracies always requires periodic assessment of the benefits and costs of public actions.  

 

However,  unsupportable criticisms that regulation is inevitably bad for business across the board contribute little to the pragmatic discussion of rule-making that we should be having.   

[Yoinkerman]

Food has huge huge huge regulation. French dairy farmers/cheese makers anyone?

[Yoinkerman]

I'd argue we need regulation to stop isps from colluding and making an Internet a pay per use service on top of what we already pay. Without regulation there's nothing stopping comcast from flat out denying access to YouTube, for instance. Or charging additional fees for using YouTube on top of the monthly fee you already pay.

[TheLongWay]

im not calling you rightwing, but the rightwing in many country's have portrayed regulation as bad and thus have convince people on all sides that it is.

 

 

 

I was not talking about regulation in  general, Regardless of my beliefs regarding regulations in general. I was talking about very specific regulations, such as NN or other IPS related regulations. I'm not going to deviate from that because this is not a forum where we debate the pros and cons or equilibrium analysis or whatever may be an intresting topic, but NN and corresponding regulations.

 

Just as a quick response to your points (ignore this if all you care about is NN, this is slightly off topic)

 

We would have safe food in rich countries anyway since so much reputation is at stake and lawsuits can be very costly for businesses. Regulations often have little to do with safety but rather with obscuring laws and creating barriers to entry. Same with licensing for hairdressers etc. Its all controlled by the big companies to keep competition out. 

Also, market analysis does not require all people to have perfect knowledge and make rational choices. I dont have a clue about cars, but Ive never had one that just exploded while driving. Why? Because the company would be bankrupt.

 

This report you quote is simply nonsense. 

 

If you create regulations regarding wages, low skilled workers are priced out,. If you regulate and increase costs, less wokers will be hired or investment will be reallocated. Reallocation is not a bad thing, but it is bad if it happens because of overregulation as opposed to changing consumer demand.

 

You dont have to know anything about cars or contract law when you just go to a dealer with a good reputation. Its as simple as that. 

 

The existing regulations on many areas of the economy are terrible,. and ISPs are just one example. This effective cartel of ISPs stems directly from the fact that regulations make it impossible to compete, because the existing firms have bad decades to lobby and finetune the law to their needs. Regulation is the driving force behind crony capitalism.

 

 

So, back to NN and ISPs please this is not a debate between Paul Krugman and von Mises...

[Alibaladin]

Sucks. I run on 1Gbps. Bye.

[GrimNeo]

Food has huge huge huge regulation. French dairy farmers/cheese makers anyone?

I agree that food needs regulation.

 

I'd argue we need regulation to stop isps from colluding and making an Internet a pay per use service on top of what we already pay. Without regulation there's nothing stopping comcast from flat out denying access to YouTube, for instance. Or charging additional fees for using YouTube on top of the monthly fee you already pay.

Does Comcast charge people for YouTube use? Sounds like something they already do. Would not surprise me.

[TheLongWay]

I'd argue we need regulation to stop isps from colluding and making an Internet a pay per use service on top of what we already pay. Without regulation there's nothing stopping comcast from flat out denying access to YouTube, for instance. Or charging additional fees for using YouTube on top of the monthly fee you already pay.

 

 

The opposite is true, The very reason the market is basically a cartel is because all the regulations are more or less written by the ISPs themselves. You dont need government to set the price of tomatoes or beer, you benefit from competition and can rest assured that profit margins are very slim in these sectors. If an ISP in a free market blocks youtube, the ISP will lose market shares and will likely go bankrupt. You dont need government for thatm you need competition, and right now the unholy marriage between comcast and other ISPs and the government keep competition out. Sure, large players like Google can do something about that, but not everyone has the bankroll of Google.

[TheLongWay]

I agree that food needs regulation.

 

Does Comcast charge people for YouTube use? Sounds like something they already do. Would not surprise me.

 

You think Mcdonalds would let customers die from,eating their burgers if we had no regulations? Do you think reputation and possible lawsuits are not enough? 

[Toddwjp]

I was not talking about regulation in  general, Regardless of my beliefs regarding regulations in general. I was talking about very specific regulations, such as NN or other IPS related regulations. I'm not going to deviate from that because this is not a forum where we debate the pros and cons or equilibrium analysis or whatever may be an intresting topic, but NN and corresponding regulations.

 

Just as a quick response to your points (ignore this if all you care about is NN, this is slightly off topic)

 

We would have safe food in rich countries anyway since so much reputation is at stake and lawsuits can be very costly for businesses. Regulations often have little to do with safety but rather with obscuring laws and creating barriers to entry. Same with licensing for hairdressers etc. Its all controlled by the big companies to keep competition out. 

Also, market analysis does not require all people to have perfect knowledge and make rational choices. I dont have a clue about cars, but Ive never had one that just exploded while driving. Why? Because the company would be bankrupt.

 

This report you quote is simply nonsense. 

 

If you create regulations regarding wages, low skilled workers are priced out,. If you regulate and increase costs, less wokers will be hired or investment will be reallocated. Reallocation is not a bad thing, but it is bad if it happens because of overregulation as opposed to changing consumer demand.

 

You dont have to know anything about cars or contract law when you just go to a dealer with a good reputation. Its as simple as that. 

 

The existing regulations on many areas of the economy are terrible,. and ISPs are just one example. This effective cartel of ISPs stems directly from the fact that regulations make it impossible to compete, because the existing firms have bad decades to lobby and finetune the law to their needs. Regulation is the driving force behind crony capitalism.

 

 

So, back to NN and ISPs please this is not a debate between Paul Krugman and von Mises...

 

jesus christ so we should just go with the the big companies have never done anything bad we should just trust them. thats the whole reason we need regulation because we cant trust them, i mean look at the financial crash

[CostcoSamples]

 

 

You claim that regulation is an issue and that it is a problem, however there's several major issues with the idea that free markets are a good thing.

 

First, they have no empirical basis. Studies uses by the business organisations claiming to show that regulation is costly and negatively impact's society only ever do so by excluding certain benefits to society from there calculations, such as lower health care costs resulting from anti-pollution measures.  Likewise, studies showing that regulations negatively impact jobs do so only by ignoring jobs gained in other sectors. 

 

Have you ever heard of Ebay?  There are some 1.3 MILLION people who live off of Ebay income alone.  Ebay is essentially anarchy, with no direct government regulation on its operations.  Sellers live and die by their reputation score.  They obsess over their score, which means they must obsess over customer satisfaction!  Imagine that, a system where business owners must obsess over your wants and desires!  incredible.  That is how a free market works.  Anyone who says otherwise has never owned a successful business.

[TheLongWay]

jesus christ so we should just go with eh the big companies have never done anything bad we should just trust them. thats the hole reason we need regulation because we cant trust them, i mean look at the financial crash

 

I have just explained in detail how the big companies are to blame because they are cooperating with the government to create quasi cartels and you accuse me of defending the big companies? Please a least take a second to read what I actually say.

 

Again: The government needed infrastructure to be build and they needed it fast. Big financiers agreed to build the infrastructure IF they were to receive some benefits and subsidies. The deal was made and from then on the two side work together, and when the population at large feels screwed enough they "regulate". But this regulation is always influenced by the companies that already dominate the market, because they care more about it and have more money than me and you. That is called crony capitalism. Why dont we have youtube channels that practise crony capitalism? Because as long as the government does not step in and regulates, competiton can work its magic. Linus doesnt need 10000 pages of regulations on how he has to satisfy his viewers, aka customers, he has an incentive to do so himself.

[ThomasD]

One hour 18 minutes.

 

I'd rather just hate comcast. That takes 5 seconds and can be done with ease.

 

On a more serious note. Regulation is needed to bring networks into the 21st century. Problems like ISPS not giving a fuck is because they don't need to give a fuck. 97% profit margins and everything else going on is BS.

 

I welcome regulations so as long as those regulations are put in place by the population and not corporations bank accounts.

If you go to OpenSecrets.org and see just where Comcast and it's CEO put their money then you might not be too happy with these latest regulations.

 

But, given that nobody will be able to read the actual regulations for the next two months, there really is not much to discus at this point.

[CostcoSamples]

Seriously guys, watch the video!

[GrimNeo]

You think Mcdonalds would let customers die from,eating their burgers if we had no regulations? Do you think reputation and possible lawsuits are not enough? 

 Would you like a happy meal with that? I suggest you watch Food, Inc.

[TheLongWay]

 Would you like a happy meal with that? I suggest you watch Food, Inc.

 

Im not saying their food is healthy. I think its disgusting, but the regulations dont make their food any safer, they just make it more expensive.

Please, lets go back to NN now.

[Toddwjp]

Have you ever heard of Ebay?  There are some 1.3 MILLION people who live off of Ebay income alone.  Ebay is essentially anarchy, with no direct government regulation on its operations.  Sellers live and die by their reputation score.  They obsess over their score, which means they must obsess over customer satisfaction!  Imagine that, a system where business owners must obsess over your wants and desires!  incredible.  That is how a free market works.  Anyone who says otherwise has never owned a successful business.

 

you cannot compare a very simple economic situation like ebay to global markets