Network Neutrality — Without Regulation 351
boyko.at.netqos writes "Timothy B. Lee (no relation to Tim Berners-Lee), a frequent contributor to Ars Technica and Techdirt, has recently written 'The Durable Internet,' a paper published by the libertarian-leaning CATO institute. In it, Lee argues that because a neutral network works better than a non-neutral one, the Internet's open-ended architecture is not likely to vanish, despite the fears of net neutrality proponents, (and despite the wishes of net neutrality opponents.) For that reason, perhaps network neutrality legislation isn't necessary — or even desirable — from an open-networks perspective. In addition to the paper, Network Performance Daily has an interview and podcast with Tim Lee, and Lee addresses counter-arguments with a blog posting for Technology Liberation Front."
I'm doubtful. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:human nature (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me know when the average Comcast customer has a vote on the board, because until he can elect a new CEO, your comparison falls flat.
Re:Just one thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
But the Internet is a two-way street, with clients and servers. If the client-side ISPs decide to start throttling, then the server-side providers can decide to start throttling those ISPs as well.
Do you really think that people will stick with an ISP that has slowed-down access to Google? I think Google is in a good position to threaten ISPs into maintaining net neutrality. Imagine going to Google and seeing a note telling you that your ISP has caused your access to Google to be throttled, and suggesting that you call your ISP or move to another ISP.
Re:Corporations cannot self-regulate. (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a caveat -- given the presence of an interventionist government, corporations have shown that they cannot self regulate.
I don't think the world would be better without government regulation, but the current crisis is as much a result of poor government regulation as it is a result of poor self regulation, and it doesn't really say anything about an unregulated marketplace. Call not for more regulation, but for better regulation. Judge results, not page counts.
(Two major things are that without the SEC, the stock market would not be as big as it is, and without Fannie and Freddie, the mortgage market would not be nearly as liquid as it is (was...).)
Re:In Other News... (Score:4, Interesting)
It was called the Community Reinvestment Act, enacted under Carter. It was intended to stop the practice of redlining. You know, redlining, where banks would refuse to make loans into certain neighborhoods that had a high percentage of bad loans and ineligible borrowers.
The CRA forced them to make bad loans so they could stay in business. Clinton increased the regulations so they had to make more. And Bush the Recent tried several times to re-regulate the system to reduce the requirement to make bad loans, every time opposed by Franks and Obama et.al. "We don't need regulation, there is no problem", sang the Dems.
Re:The gist (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with a good bit of libertarian philosophy - like the portions about the government shouldn't be able to tell you what you can and can't put in your body or what you can and can't do in the privacy of your home. I don't agree with a near-complete defanging of the government.
The government is supposed to be (in my eyes) an organization to protect us from things that can screw the individual over (other large organizations, like corporations) as well as provide for the common defense and needs of the people. Nothing more and nothing less.
Re:In Other News... (Score:3, Interesting)
Banks were not under zero regulation, they were being highly regulated by the government and if you honestly believe that the free market caused this collapse, then you are sorely mistaken. Just because the federal government's solution to this debacle is more regulation and bailouts doesn't mean there were zero before.
Re:In Other News... (Score:1, Interesting)
What law FORCED banks to take risky loans? Please be specific.
Re:In Other News... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:human nature (Score:5, Interesting)
The credit problems and the various bubbles are rooted in a few generic problems: 1. People taking part in the markets are often poorly informed and irrational. 2. Over a short period some people can cheat a market for higher profits and often escape the consequences of doing so.
Markets are based on a notion of value and that is a psychological thing. To ignore the human element in favor of a model based on some vast crowds of these mythical, rational buyers and sellers is a mistake.
Re:human nature (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell me about it. How dumb to blame ISP availability on such tiny things, such as .. oh, I don't know .. cable monopoly status granted by franchise agreements with local governments, for periods lasting decades.
Re:The gist (Score:3, Interesting)
If you truly believe that, then you should be a libertarian. Governments have far more power than anyone else. A company only power consists in choosing not to do business with you; governments, on the other hand, are comfortable with the use of force, possessing a facade of legitimacy no private aggressor can match.
As for the telcos -- this was never a free market to begin with. The government used its taxes and legislation to create the monopoly in the first place, and to this day the major communications companies remain only semi-private, with special privileges and regulations at various levels, all of which contribute to maintaining high barriers against any potential competition.
The situation with cable service, too, is primarily the product of local governments and their short-sighted regional exclusivity agreements.
80% by square mile perhaps. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you live in the city or most 'burbs you have at least DSL and cable. Also dialup and satallite but they suck. Classic Oligopoly.
Markets rarely devolve into monopoly (outside the fevered imaginations of 'know it all college hippies'). Much more typical is the other way around (additional competitors enter the market over time), which is why wireless is so important. Much lower barriers to entry.
Re:human nature (Score:2, Interesting)
the cables would never have even been put in the ground without government intervention in the granting of utility easements. the cable companies would have to either buy strips of land or dots of land and air rights as would the electric providers, the phone companies, the gas companies, water and sewage providers. it would take only one holdout to prevent utility penetration into a neighborhood.
Re:Libertarians love censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
Libertarians hate govt regulation, so therefore, so do Anarchist
You want the govt to dicate what corporations?
You do realize that a corporation can be a single person, or family in my case. You want nobody to be able to open a business and make a living for themselves?
Agreed, I have no idea what your definition of Anarchy is. I think the other poster said it, you sound more like a commie, using some crazy definition of Anarchist to pass off your views as better than what they really are.
As for the flea market... why do you care what the sellers make? Don't you just want the consumers to be the ones that win? I thought you didn't care for "companies" (aka sellers). Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself.