Straight to the point

[unixronin]

I don't believe I have yet seen a more succinct summary of the "Net Neutrality" issue than the one Illiad posted today.

Comments

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Bah. I'm getting really tired of all of this socialist tripe about "net neutrality". Don't like AT&T's terms of service or prices for their fiber? Don't use it.

-Ogre

[skellington.livejournal.com]

While I think if they try to charge Google, Google will start sending them a bill for their content...

But if I don't like my cable companies policies, my choices are the other cable company. Ooops! There isn't one!

(OK, at this address I can get DSL, but there are plenty of places that only have one broadband provider.)

Should your voice provider send your LD carrier a bill to make sure there's sufficent capacity to switch to them or that the connection is static free?

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

But if I don't like my cable companies policies, my choices are the other cable company. Ooops! There isn't one!

I'm sorry, is this supposed to be an argument against my position?

If you don't like the cable company's policies or prices, you always have the option of doing without service. That's how the market works. You have something I want, I pay your price or I do without. If enough people are doing without because the price is too high, then there's an opportunity for competition.

Do you really think the phone companies have the option of raising prices in a vaccuum? Or can manage to stay in business by charging so much that they force all of their customers under?

Should your voice provider send your LD carrier a bill to make sure there's sufficent capacity to switch to them or that the connection is static free?

How the hell should I know the answer to that? I don't run a phone company. I suspect you don't either. Which probably means we're not really qualified to have an opinion on how the phone company should determine how it allocates its resources.

Would you accept my input on how avionics should work? I bloody well hope not, since I don't know a blessed thing about them.

-Ogre

No opinion on this issue but....

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

many of skellington's friends work for Cingular and I'm fairly certain I have seem in the ICB /g WICB while they were discussing this issue.

Re: No opinion on this issue but....

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

*shrug*

If they're in ICB, I'm guessing they're technical people. Switching packets != "running a phone company".

At any rate, my point about how I don't run a phone company still stands, regarding the question to me about how a phone company should conduct its business.

And my point about it being private property certainly stands untouched.

-Ogre

Re: No opinion on this issue but....

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Furthermore, I have no expectation of changing anyone's mind. I have sworn eternal enmity towards socialism and communism, and was merely intending on calling it out to Alaric in this case.

-Ogre

Re: No opinion on this issue but....

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I don't see this as a "socialism/communism vs. free market" issue. I see it as an "allowing a free market to remain free vs. restoring power of monopoly" issue.

[databeast.livejournal.com]

Should your voice provider send your LD carrier a bill to make sure there's sufficent capacity to switch to them or that the connection is static free?

technically, they already do in certain senses of the idea.

Inter-carrier financials are exceptionally bizarre and complex, especially in the Cellular markets (look at Illuminet for examples)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

You don't necessarily have a choice of whose fiber you're going across. In particular, it allows EVERY local loop owner to hold everyone in their coverage area hostage.

For example, we're on an RTU to which Verizon is not obligated to give third-party carriers any access at all, so unles we want to go with dial-up, our choice of ISP is Verizon if we want DSL, or Adelphia if we want cable. There are no other choices. Without Net neutrality, everyone is potentially in that same boat. All independent ISPs that don't have a block of customers whose local loops they own could be driven out of business almost overnight, simply by the telcos either refusing to carry their traffic or demanding surcharges for it that the independent ISPs couldn't pay and still stay in business.
You like to use VOIP, maybe? What if your telco starts demanding $1 per minute to route Vonage traffic?
You like Google? Maybe your telco has a co-marketing agreement with Yahoo!, and they start charging an access fee for Google that adds something like fifty cents per Google page load to your phone bill. How long can you afford to keep using Google at fifty cents a page load?
You have an email account that's not run by your local telco? Oh dear, that'll cost you fifty cents a kilobyte sent or received from now on.

The bastards are crooked enough already. They don't need any more room to gouge people.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

And?

It's fscking private property. If you don't like the access fees, do without access.

Plus, think about who will be implementing this. The Congress of the United States of America. They call it "Net Neutrality" but it's not like they have to adhere to truth in advertising laws. What was the full name of the PATRIOT act? "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"? You think there's really a chance they won't just tilt the field some more in favor of their pet lobbyists?

And hell, even if they did happen to be on the level for once, these are people you wouldn't trust to make peanut butter sandwiches for your kids. You think they're suddenly going to turn into little einsteins when it comes to crafting a policy on network structure and usage fees? When has governmental regulation ever improved the service you got from an industry?

-Ogre

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

The local loop is NOT private property. It is a right of way, and a regulated monopoly, granted by the state.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

It is private property in the same way that shopping malls are private property. If they don't invite the public, they have not reason for existing. In addition, my property description allows easements for these utilities to use My private property, because the government, and society, deems the service provided is that important. If they abuse that access, they will lose the easement.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

First off, regulating monopolies is not socialism.

I have read all the Wall Street Journal's opinions about defeating "net neutrality", and they all fail because they ignore the fact that there is no market. We have monopolies providing services, some of those services compete with their core business, the monopolies want to protect their core business.

We are also talking about something that is becoming as important as phone service or power to today's economy. I simply could not be in school right now without net access at home. Too many kids and obligations. If I could only use the net during library hours or when I am at school, I could not complete my classes.

From an Adam Smith perspective, net access is a "common good". Allowing a provider to regulate access to "common goods" is an economic abuse. Allowing providers to charge more, or introduce delays, based on the type of traffic is an abuse of the commons. Is that attitude pure capitalism? Hell No! Pure Capitalism leads to monopolies, which are not in the best interest of the public. (Or, by extension, the government.)

Do I expect that our government can get it right? Hell no! But the concept of "net neutrality" is in the best interest of our economy and society. And, if the telco's play it right, the best interests of the providers.

Change is one of the hardest things for an established company to deal with. Fighting change because it changes the business model is pure, distilled stupidity. We are seeing it from the RIAA, the MPAA, Micro$oft, and a few others. How do you think they are doing in the court of public opinion? How long will politicians protect those companies if the public dislikes them?

Just a visitor here.

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

Pure Capitalism leads to monopolies, which are not in the best interest of the public.

Nonsense and poppycock. Can you even define "pure capitalism"? Capitalism is any economic system in which symbolic units of currency are used to "keep score", wherein that capital provides a scalable framework for the economy so that economic entities can measure and respond to the effects of market forces upon them. This lends itself, in its purest implementations, to small, dynamic businesses with ever-changing profit models, innovation, and egalitarian opportunity. What lends itself to monopolism is a mixed economy wherein government attempts to regulate market forces, leading to an unhealthy incestuous economic relationship between semi-private centers of economic power and semi-public centers of political power.

The rest of your argument mostly depends on your mistaken impression of "capitalism", so it begins falling apart once one considers an accurate definition of capitalism.

As for your question about the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft, the answer should be obvious: politicians will try to protect them as long as those politicians keep getting money from them.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

All I can say is that your economics professor disagrees strongly with my economics professor.

This lends itself, in its purest implementations, to small, dynamic businesses with ever-changing profit models, innovation, and egalitarian opportunity.

And this is how we got the Robber Barons of the railroads? Standard Oil? AG groceries? Wall*mart? Micro$oft?

Capitalism also lends itself to winners and losers in acquiring capital. The winners will tend to increase scale for greater economies, to continue acquiring capital. That can mean buying companies in the same market space. That can also mean blocking competitors from access to the market. Eventually, there is no one else to buy, the barriers to entry are too great, and there is no one left in your market segment. That equals monopoly.

Your definition depends on simple access to markets by the public and business playing by the rules. Unfortunately, there are always a few willing to "bend" the rules for greater profit. That will distort the proper function of the market to efficiently allocate resources.

Regulations that protect access to markets are needed to maintain optimal resource allocation. Movements to block market access, or limit choice of product (usually done by companies) limit the proper function of the market.

Perhaps the RIAA or MPAA are not good examples. Try big oil. They are still giving money to politicians. They are not getting much return on that investment right now. Politicians are elected by people. When money from some sources becomes a negative, it will not matter how much there is of it, it will be refused. (Abramoff) The system is not perfect, but it does still work.

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

And this is how we got the Robber Barons of the railroads? Standard Oil? AG groceries? Wall*mart? Micro$oft?

Of course not. Weren't you paying attention? We got those things by way of governmental interference in what would otherwise be a free market economy. Corporate consolidations of power depend implicitly upon legislative support.

Capitalism also lends itself to winners and losers in acquiring capital.

Market economies are not zero-sum games.

Your definition depends on simple access to markets by the public and business playing by the rules.

Actually, it depends on the absence of externalities imposing arbitrary advantages for increased consolidations of collective economic power. The only "rules" that need be followed for things to work effectively in a free market economy are the very economic laws that define them.

One of the big problems I run into with having discussions about economics and capitalistic economic systems online is the widespread inability to differentiate between "corporation" and "business", both definitionally and functionally. I mostly blame this, in current circumstances, on the Republican Party's at least semi-intentional conflation of "business" with "corporation".

When money from some sources becomes a negative, it will not matter how much there is of it, it will be refused.

Uh, what? Are you trying to say that when the political currency gained from campaign contributions from such organizations is outweighed by that gained from counteracting sources, politicians will alter their approach? Well, yeah. If that's what you're trying to say, that's damned near a tautology — and pretty much exactly what I said, in more flippant terms.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I have been paying attention. You make all your claims from the standpoint that the only things that can truly distort markets are government regulations and restrictions. I find that position to be silly and naive. Markets are. ultimately, human systems. Greed can, and often does, distort markets.

Adam Smith defined "common goods". They are needed to allow markets to function properly. I claim that a market is there to efficiently allocate resources, not generate wealth for any particular entity. Access to markets is an example of a common good. Common goods need to be protected against predatory practices by people participating in markets.

The original discussion was a plan to restrict access to markets, and a bill to stop that practice, called "net neutrality". The providers are almost universally monopolies in their areas.

You also assume that the law of diminishing returns is universal. I claim that increasing returns are possible. That will distort markets. (I claim that Micro$oft is an example of an increasing returns model.)

I further claim that when there are negatives attached to politicians taking money from some sectors, they will not accept that money. The Jack Abramoff brouhaha where several at risk representatives returned money is a good example. Big oil will not get any breaks this year, no matter how much they spent on politicians. Money is not the only governing factor in Washington.

I can place things in pure economic terms, but most people cannot follow it and the rest just don't care. Markets are driven by humans for human ends. It is quite reasonable to attribute broad human emotive factors to the explanation of market behavior. (Usually greed and fear.)

The bottom line is that I can't agree with your premise, so you arguments make no sense to me.

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

You make all your claims from the standpoint that the only things that can truly distort markets are government regulations and restrictions.

Not quite. What distorts markets are imposed externalities that attempt to "regulate" or "restrict" market forces. I tend to use government as the canonical example of this, often in concert with corporations, but in general it's consolidated power structures in the generic that can have this sort of effect.

Greed can, and often does, distort markets.

That's patently absurd. So-called "greed" is in fact part of what defines markets. Without the impetus toward profitability, market economies wouldn't exist. In fact, any form of trade for mutual benefit wouldn't exist. Far from a distorting influence, "greed" is a foundational component of the market.

I claim that a market is there to efficiently allocate resources, not generate wealth for any particular entity.

A market isn't "there to" anything. A market arises from free interactions for mutual benefit. Are you sure you know what "market" means, as a formal term of economics?

Common goods need to be protected against predatory practices by people participating in markets.

I find that laughable, though from another perspective I suppose it might look merely mistaken. Individuals need to be defended (not "protected", so much, though now I'm nitpicking) against predatory practices — not "common goods". A "common good" is a widely beneficial circumstance, not a thing that is harmed by predation.

One of the nifty things about (free) markets is that they are self-correcting. One of the unfortunate things is that they do not exist in a vacuum. The goal of government, in relation to the economy, should consist solely of insulating the economy against imposition of unbalancing externalities and the effects of individual predation. The sort of mass economic predation we get to see in the real world on a daily basis are the somewhat-direct result of consolidations of economic power made possible by the government becoming, itself, an imposer of unbalancing externalities.

The original discussion was a plan to restrict access to markets, and a bill to stop that practice, called "net neutrality". The providers are almost universally monopolies in their areas.

. . . and, in principle, I agree with ilcylic on that score. I'm not entirely sure I agree enough to actually cheer for one side or the other, however. The first problem is that, as you say, monopolies (created in large part by the state of corporate law in the US) control infrastructure that these proposed "net neutrality" measures are meant to address, and can (and probably will) conceivably leverage monopoly power to engage in anticompetitive practices, direct price-gouging, and so on. The second problem is that legislating against it is almost certainly doomed to failure in terms of producing any kind of positive outcomes except in the most narrow and superficial manner, and even that will be balanced by very real negative countereffects. It's a lose-lose situation. Thus, while in principle I agree that "net neutrality" legislation should not be enacted in any way, in practice I find it difficult to summon the motivation to give a hot damn since we're screwed either way.

The correct (and politically "impossible", at this point) course of action would be to start kicking the legs out from under the legal supports that provide fertile ground for monopoly organizations such as the telcos to exist in the first place, then watch them crumble in the face of competition. Sure, it'd be like waves throwing themselves at a rock face at first, but erosion works, and has the benefit of not destabilizing what we hilariously call our market economy through traumatic paradigm shifts.

[to be continued . . .]

. . . continuation:

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

You also assume that the law of diminishing returns is universal.

When did I do that?

I claim that Micro$oft is an example of an increasing returns model.

Actually, Microsoft is on the ropes in a number of interesting ways right now. It's also an interesting demonstration of my points to note what Microsoft is trying to use to fight this: legislation. (Note: I watch Microsoft for a living — I'm an IT industry analyst and freelance professional writer of IT industry related materials. That's meant to be an indication of the fact that I am in fact aware of the example in some detail, not an appeal to authority fallacy.)

I further claim

Have you been on a debate team? This isn't a dig at your or anything like that. I'm just curious. Your use of the term "claim" sounds suspiciously like formal debate language. Coming from more of a symbolic logic background myself, I don't usually state my claims in such a manner, but I'm familiar with the technique.

It is quite reasonable to attribute broad human emotive factors to the explanation of market behavior.

That makes perfect sense, and in fact seems to directly contradict your earlier use of the term "greed". Aggregate behavior as a result of individual motivation is an intrinsic part of a market economy, not an externality that can distort normal market behavior.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

The correct (and politically "impossible", at this point) course of action would be to start kicking the legs out from under the legal supports that provide fertile ground for monopoly organizations such as the telcos to exist in the first place, then watch them crumble in the face of competition.

That certainly sounds like it would be the ideal solution (though there are simple technical issues of physical plant to consider, as well). However, as you point out, it's politically impossible at present. A "Net neutrality" bill may be the best we're going to get, right now.

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

I agree, which really bothers me, because I also think it may be the worst we're going to get — perhaps simultaneous with being the best, or perhaps instead. It's going to be bad, in any case, whether it's less bad or more bad than doing without.

Oh, I forgot something. . . .

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

First off, regulating monopolies is not socialism.

You're right. Technically, it's fascism.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

That only applies if you reject the concept of a "common good". Some common goods are things that have negative market value, like parks in neighborhoods taking valuable property, (of course having a park can increase property value, which is why it is a good, not a bad.) A common good can also be something like access to markets. In pure capitalism, access to markets can be restricted by participants in the markets, leading to inefficient allocation of resources. That is a "bad". It is not socialism or fascism to ensure that monopolies do not distort markets simply by having a monopoly position. Capitalism does not admit that this is needed because it is only concerned with the accumulation of wealth, not playing fair.

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

Say what?

Regulation of monopolies is pretty much the very definition of fascism. Elimination of monopolies is a function of free markets governed by competitive economies. The term "common good" is a bit of heuristic voodoo that is used to justify whatever comes down the pike that fits someone's notion of how things should be this week — it can be used to justify "necessary monopolies", interdependent governmental monopoly regulation (fascism), monopoly elimination, and even a pure state monopoly (socialism).

Ultimately, it's not monopoly that's a problem in any case: it's anticompetitive practices. Take that and run with it.

Capitalism does not admit that this is needed because it is only concerned with the accumulation of wealth, not playing fair.

Are we anthropomorphizing economic systems now? That entire statement is nonsense. An economic system has no ability to act in and of itself, has no motivational characteristics, and does not in any way have a will of its own.