Net Neutrality

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

BrntOrngStmpeDe, Net Neutrality was a farce to help powerful corporations stay in power and keep out innovation. It would have led to higher costs and less services long term. If that is not the definition of over-regulation, then it does not exist to you. Read Sange Naranjada's article.

More like innovation in the delivery of electricity, meaning the business model and level of service provided. Much of what I was talking about was in reference to the regional monopolies that many utilities enjoy. It is the same issue with the cable/ISPs. More government regulation comes at the expense of granting regional monopolies. Remove that and competition takes care of market desires.

I read it. In a wireless world where service provisioning is not constrained by physical infrastructure then perhaps net neutrality laws are not as necessary because there is a relatively easy method to switch, but a 1yr test run does not 'prove' that as the author declares. Net Neutrality is needed. Does it need a law to enforce it? Maybe not. but we are way too early into the internet age to foresee if throttling/blocking becomes a thing and how throttling/blocking might impact the market.

But requiring net neutrality by law, is not this onerous thing that is going to prohibit or even inhibit innovation either. Verizon didn't start or stop their plans for 5G based on what may or may not happen with NetNeutrality. I would also suggest that many of these providers are slow walking their throttling efforts and coloring within the lines so that they can appease the NetNeutrality crowd and forestall regulation. I haven't seen or heard of negative outcomes yet, so I would put this one in the TBD column for now.

 

[Monahorns]

Throttling has never been an issue. I think the one instance of it was Comcast and the issue was found and resolved with no Net Neutrality law.

Why right laws to resolve issues that don't exist?

 

[mchammer]

Here’s my rehash that I say all the time to liberals:
- private companies do make mistakes or even break the law, yet they get caught and are punished for it
- government or gov enterprises (read Medicare, Fannie Mae or whatever) have fraudulent practices that go on forever that never get corrected (Medicare fraud for example)

Which one gets the headlines (the former)? Which one is worse in terms of $ (the latter)?

Never had a liberal dispute this.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Monahorns and Stampede,
Thanks for the insight. I posted the article without comment because I'm mostly an idiot about these types of tech issues and I had hoped it would spark further reaction from people more knowledgeable than I. Before you two jumped in I was working only with the amazing wit displayed by LongestHorn and I wasn't entirely sure if I should change my entire point of view based on his pithy commentary.

 

[LongestHorn]

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...e-comcast-and-atandt-dollar45-million-instead

 

[Seattle Husker]

I would also suggest that many of these providers are slow walking their throttling efforts and coloring within the lines so that they can appease the NetNeutrality crowd and forestall regulation. I haven't seen or heard of negative outcomes yet, so I would put this one in the TBD column for now.

This.

 

[Mr. Deez]

- private companies do make mistakes or even break the law, yet they get caught and are punished for it

Private companies frequently break the law and often go unpunished when they do, and they pay defense counsels a lot of money and donate a lot to politicians to ensure that they go unpunished.

I'm not saying they never get punished. I'm saying that it's far from a certainty, and when they are, it usually comes after a lengthy and expensive battle.

- government or gov enterprises (read Medicare, Fannie Mae or whatever) have fraudulent practices that go on forever that never get corrected (Medicare fraud for example)

This is very true, but the biggest problem isn't true fraud (though there's plenty of that). It's poor design and a refusal to accept realities.

Which one gets the headlines (the former)? Which one is worse in terms of $ (the latter)?

The business when caught gets the headlines. The government screw ups are far more consequential.

 

[Monahorns]

"Doom is coming" is always the message for Progressives who wants more control of your life.

 

[Monahorns]

Learn history or be doomed to repeat it.

When monopoly did appear, it was solely because of government intervention. For example, in 1890 a bill was introduced into the Maryland legislature that "called for an annual payment to the city from the Consolidated [Gas Company] of $10,000 a year and 3 percent of all dividends declared in return for the privilege of enjoying a 25-year monopoly.22 This is the now-familiar approach of government officials colluding with industry executives to establish a monopoly that will gouge the consumers, and then sharing the loot with the politicians in the form of franchise fees and taxes on monopoly revenues. This approach is especially pervasive today in the cable TV industry.

With regard to "public" utilities, Gray records that "between 1907 and 1938, the policy of state-created, state-protected monopoly became firmly established over a significant portion of the economy and became the keystone of modern public utility regulation."26 From that time on, "the public utility status was to be the haven of refuge for all aspiring monopolists who found it too difficult, too costly, or too precarious to secure and maintain monopoly by private action alone."27

The Myth of Natural Monopoly | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

 

[Horn6721]

Mona
Amazing and unknown.
Thanks for finding this.
There is some good to everything being more open and transparent now.

 

[LongestHorn]

DiLorenzo is neither amazing nor unknown.

 

[Monahorns]

DiLorenzo is pretty amazing if you like cogent economic discussion.

 

[Joe Fan]

Apparently we suck at 5G

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Can comment, I'm already dead from it.