Net Neutrality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So what!? Wi-Fi uses high frequency with a very short range…everyone on my block uses wi-fi with no ill effects. Thank you, SSID/WEP protocol.
[/quote]

Yes, and so do many people on my block. And those wireless devices operate within the 2Ghz range. And gee, so do everyone’s wireless phones. And then… we have issues with wireless phones and internet connections. Go figure.

Btw, why do you think these devices have short ranges? Don’t you think people would like to make their devices as strong as possible, to block out unwanted interference (like with FM modulators)? Nah, that would never happen.

62

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

How exactly does a company crowd competitors out of the market if there is no regulation?

By utilizing economies of scale.

First of all, companies don’t “utilize economies of scale.” This is just an advantage that is enjoyed by being an established company verses some other entrepreneur who wishes to enter the market. Those who do successfully enter the market usually out-compete economies of scale because they have figured out how to better utilize and manage resources…or maybe they render their competitor’s resources obsolete.

For example, in the case of the telcos, if a competitor figures out how to make hard lines obsolete they will out-compete the telcos which is why we need deregulation of the EM spectrum.

There is no such thing as a natural monopoly because entry into the market has to be barred by regulation for it to occur.[/quote]

I disagree but it isn’t the point. The point is that the Internet is the largest freest market that has ever existed, if regulation is aimed at keeping it that way then it is good.

63

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Btw, why do you think these devices have short ranges?
[/quote]
It’s because there is an inverse relationship between frequency and wavelength. I didn’t make the laws of physics, I just follow them.

[quote]
Don’t you think people would like to make their devices as strong as possible, to block out unwanted interference (like with FM modulators)? Nah, that would never happen.[/quote]

Wouldn’t unwanted interference be a violation of property rights? Problem solved.

64

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
The point is that the Internet is the largest freest market that has ever existed, if regulation is aimed at keeping it that way then it is good.[/quote]

But the internet (and other markets) can only remain free so long and the market is “free” to operate. Regulation is the opposite of freedom.

65

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

But the internet (and other markets) can only remain free so long and the market is “free” to operate. Regulation is the opposite of freedom.[/quote]

The first statement is true and false. In this case the market seems to be the Internet itself, not the way it is accessed. The companies are threatening the freedom of the Internet by fragmenting it and making vast chunks of it inaccessible to certain people. Regulation is handicapping large companies ability to restrict consumer freedom in this case. This also positively effects small-business start-ups and other internet entrepreneurs. At the same time I can’t see how it would restrict a migration to a wireless backbone.

As Nephorm stated, these companies have the ability to restrict the market by acting as a cartel. Again, in this case the market being the Internet itself. If the people don’t want that, and I don’t see why they would, it is logical to regulate that possibility out of existence.

66

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
In this case the market seems to be the Internet itself, not the way it is accessed. The companies are threatening the freedom of the Internet by fragmenting it and making vast chunks of it inaccessible to certain people.
[/quote]
The freedoms are for the owners of the internet (telcos, ISPs, content, etc) to use their property not for consumers. Freedoms have only to do with how we as individuals use our natural rights. There are no inherent rights to the internet as consumers. Consumers must pay for its use. If I owned and operated some infrastructure I would use it in the most efficient way to make profits. If some outside agency tried to violate my property rights in that regard I’d be very angry. Also, if I was not offering a valuable service I would not even be able to be in the market to begin with.

You must understand that profits will be seen by other entrepreneurs who will then want to enter the market and try to “steal” profits away from these companies. To keep property owners from making a profit from their property will not serve the market forces. We as consumers rely on profit seekers and they rely on us for that profit. It is a two way street that cannot be damned. This is the beauty of the mutual respect that comes about between the customer and business owner. When one is hurt so is the other.

A cartel only has so much power over its customers. As long as other entrepreneurs are not barred from entering the market other means for customers will come about as long as those entrepreneurs can compete. If they cannot then it turns out we are being better served by the companies in question. Case closed.

67

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

There is no such thing as a natural monopoly because entry into the market has to be barred by regulation for it to occur.[/quote]

Incorrect, because monopolies are not merely defined by what happens at the entry level of the market. Barriers to entry are one measure, and can be created by something other than regulation.

Don’t take my word for it, talk to a person that actually engages in real-world finance, not mere abstractions - capital has trouble moving into markets where transaction costs are too high due to natural monopolies, as well as opportunity costs.

How we deal with them is a separate question, but there are natural monopolies that aren’t purely the creation of regulation.

68

[quote]beebuddy wrote:

The point is that the Internet is the largest freest market that has ever existed, if regulation is aimed at keeping it that way then it is good.[/quote]

Correct. If the “market” - really, “market participants” - chooses to create regulations to create an orderly market in order to preserve it or improve it, regulation isn’t necessarily bad.

I am no fan of over-regulation and I think we are generally over-regulated, but the anarchic “no regulation” nonsense is just noise from someone who has no skin in the game.

69

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The freedoms are for the owners of the internet (telcos, ISPs, content, etc) to use their property not for consumers. Freedoms have only to do with how we as individuals use our natural rights. There are no inherent rights to the internet as consumers. Consumers must pay for its use. If I owned and operated some infrastructure I would use it in the most efficient way to make profits. If some outside agency tried to violate my property rights in that regard I’d be very angry. Also, if I was not offering a valuable service I would not even be able to be in the market to begin with.

You must understand that profits will be seen by other entrepreneurs who will then want to enter the market and try to “steal” profits away from these companies. To keep property owners from making a profit from their property will not serve the market forces. We as consumers rely on profit seekers and they rely on us for that profit. It is a two way street that cannot be damned. This is the beauty of the mutual respect that comes about between the customer and business owner. When one is hurt so is the other.

A cartel only has so much power over its customers. As long as other entrepreneurs are not barred from entering the market other means for customers will come about as long as those entrepreneurs can compete. If they cannot then it turns out we are being better served by the companies in question. Case closed.[/quote]

Here’s the other thing… There would be no private property without government. This isn’t the state of nature.

70

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
nephorm wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
What the telcos want (i.e. those opposed to “net neutrality”) is the ability to charge for premium service (subject to service level agreements).

If Google wants to ensure a better experience for its customers, they are free to pay, say, AT&T extra fees to ensure dedicated bandwidth for customers accessing their site.

But, you see, Google doesn’t want to pay extra for this.

Therefore, Google and their lobbyists created the meme: “net neutrality”

What the telcos want is to be able to identify companies with successful internet presence, and then throttle traffic to those specific sites. Google would not be paying to ensure a “better” experience, they would be paying to ensure the same experience for customers. What the telcos - or at least Verizon - want to do is exploit their positions as gatekeepers to extort money from the other direction. They are essentially playing mafia.

Exactly.[/quote]

You’re both just plain wrong. Google would be paying for better service i.e. instead of getting everyday service. And Google users would get special toll road service (bypassing normal congestion). This is simply how Telcos charge all their large corporate customers. What, exactly, is new here?

Now, in the past corporations would pay for dedicated line (ISDN, T1s, etc). But now, they can use the internet infrastructure and purchase SLAs (service level agreements) guaranteeing uptime, throughput, etc. (aka VPNs or cirtual private networks)

If this is how the telcos charge all their large corporate customers, why should Google be any different?

The truth is, you’re being bamboozled by the Google disinformation campaign.

71

[quote]nephorm wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Yes, it’s too bad so many people are grossly misinformed :slight_smile:

Which is why I said it is bad politics. Practical considerations are key for doing politics well. [/quote]

So we should institute bad policies because the electorate is misinformed?

72

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
nephorm wrote:
What the telcos - or at least Verizon - want to do is exploit their positions as gatekeepers to extort money from the other direction. They are essentially playing mafia.

The Telcos could always just refuse to keep up their maintenance and not allow anyone service. That would solve everything.

Google, et al, does not have any rights to the infrastructure that was bought and paid for by the Telcos. PERDIOD.

That is not extortion. That is called a legal profit model. It is up to the market to figure out ways around the Telco’s position – in order to do this we require deregulation.[/quote]

'zactly.

73

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The freedoms are for the owners of the internet (telcos, ISPs, content, etc) to use their property not for consumers. Freedoms have only to do with how we as individuals use our natural rights. There are no inherent rights to the internet as consumers. Consumers must pay for its use. If I owned and operated some infrastructure I would use it in the most efficient way to make profits. If some outside agency tried to violate my property rights in that regard I’d be very angry. Also, if I was not offering a valuable service I would not even be able to be in the market to begin with.

You must understand that profits will be seen by other entrepreneurs who will then want to enter the market and try to “steal” profits away from these companies. To keep property owners from making a profit from their property will not serve the market forces. We as consumers rely on profit seekers and they rely on us for that profit. It is a two way street that cannot be damned. This is the beauty of the mutual respect that comes about between the customer and business owner. When one is hurt so is the other.

A cartel only has so much power over its customers. As long as other entrepreneurs are not barred from entering the market other means for customers will come about as long as those entrepreneurs can compete. If they cannot then it turns out we are being better served by the companies in question. Case closed
[/quote]
very well stated.

[quote]
Here’s the other thing… There would be no private property without government. This isn’t the state of nature.[/quote]

Private property rights are a “natural right.” Government exists (primarily) to enforce natural rights.

74

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Private property rights are a “natural right.” Government exists (primarily) to enforce natural rights. [/quote]

It’s the other way around though. Reality just doesn’t fit into Locke’s theory. The enclosure movement of the 13th century was the advent of private property. Property was bestowed on British citizens by the Parliament. It’s the way it is in the real world.

75

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:

Private property rights are a “natural right.” Government exists (primarily) to enforce natural rights.

It’s the other way around though. Reality just doesn’t fit into Locke’s theory. The enclosure movement of the 13th century was the advent of private property. Property was bestowed on British citizens by the Parliament. It’s the way it is in the real world.[/quote]

Private property has existed since the beginning of humankind. Museums are filled with examples. Go to one sometime and see :slight_smile:

76

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
How we deal with them is a separate question, but there are natural monopolies that aren’t purely the creation of regulation.

[/quote]

There are natural monopolies, but very, very few.

77

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
beebuddy wrote:

The point is that the Internet is the largest freest market that has ever existed, if regulation is aimed at keeping it that way then it is good.

Correct. If the “market” - really, “market participants” - chooses to create regulations to create an orderly market in order to preserve it or improve it, regulation isn’t necessarily bad.
[/quote]
Self-organizing is one thing. Leveraging the regulatory power of the state to further your own company’s/sector’s interests is another.

[quote]
I am no fan of over-regulation and I think we are generally over-regulated, but the anarchic “no regulation” nonsense is just noise from someone who has no skin in the game.[/quote]

Most hedge fund managers, PMs, and analysts are extremely “anti-regulatory” wrt the industry/sector in which they operate. They have a great deal of “skin in the game.”

78

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Private property has existed since the beginning of humankind. Museums are filled with examples. Go to one sometime and see :slight_smile:

[/quote]

You are referring to personal property for the most part. Private property is legally sanctioned.

79

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Incorrect, because monopolies are not merely defined by what happens at the entry level of the market. Barriers to entry are one measure, and can be created by something other than regulation.
[/quote]

Just name one barrier that isn’t created by regulation and I will concede my argument.

80

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Self-organizing is one thing. Leveraging the regulatory power of the state to further your own company’s/sector’s interests is another.[/quote]

Problem - “self-organizing” is the state. It is also other things (SROs), but the state is one such arrangement.

Trust me, I err on the side of not wanting regulation, but when a “market” decides it wants a regime in place for an ordered market, that isn’t necessarily a departure from the market.

True in one sense, but not because they have or want to keep a monopoly. They operate in extremely competitive markets where they want high risk, low accountability.

But to note - many of the same folks want an ordered market, including one that is governed by uniform GAAP standards, ordered trading platforms on exchanges, and financial reporting as required by the SEC.

And, my point was directed at Lifticus, who is merely a cipher of an ideology, not someone who has much interest in learning how actual markets work.