tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post605384628969147146..comments2024-01-06T10:36:04.084-05:00Comments on A Commonplace Blog: Against “net neutrality”D. G. Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-17950730021462065752010-12-30T00:23:53.464-05:002010-12-30T00:23:53.464-05:00One problem, Dr. Myers, with your analysis is that...One problem, Dr. Myers, with your analysis is that there is no fair and free competitive environment in the internet provider landscape. While an agreement between an ISP and a particular service may be voluntary for those companies, the customer is pretty much stuck with the service that ISP decides to give them. You'll be hard pressed to find many markets in the US where more than two ISPs give service, and many of them are totally locked up by a single ISP.<br /><br />If there's a healthy competitive market where customers can choose a different ISP if their ISP starts favoring access to services that the customer doesn't want and limiting access to services that they do, then there's no need for network neutrality. But if my ISP suddenly decides that they know better than I do how I want the bandwidth that I pay for to be allocated, the current market doesn't give me any recourse.Scott Cunninghamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-37684842864495130492010-12-22T10:35:03.647-05:002010-12-22T10:35:03.647-05:00Point taken about the politics, Ibn.
About the re...Point taken about the politics, Ibn.<br /><br />About the relevance of the Sherman Antitrust Act, I am less persuaded. Any claim that the internet is a monopoly will not pass the laugh test.D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-28859602286150052832010-12-22T08:49:55.234-05:002010-12-22T08:49:55.234-05:00I enjoy your blog immensely; the criticism is alwa...I enjoy your blog immensely; the criticism is always provocative and going through your archives is a real pleasure.<br /><br />I've never been motivated to leave a comment before, but your post on net neutrality has motivated me to to do.<br /><br />First, to say that the Obama Administration supports net neutrality because of the trial lawyers undermines your well-earned credibility. If you hate trial lawyers, that's fine -- they're not interested in esoterica like internet regulation. Rathre, slip and falls and standard negligence are their, er, butter and bread. If lawyers get involved, which I'm sure they will, it will be at the highest levels of corporate law. Think Weil Gotschal or Wilson Sonsini, and those guys are as likely to vote GOP as Democratic. Perhaps more so.<br /><br />And while I appreciate your generally conservative take on matters public, net neutrality is arguably like antitrust. Now you can oppose the Sherman Act, if you'd like to very paleolibertarian. And you may want to argue that net neutrality is not, in fact, analogous to the Sherman Act. <br /><br />But you do have to engage the fact that antitrust is an essential part of a free market -- indeed is an essential tool in preserving the free market against rent-seeking businesses. So the question isn't about government intervention, but creating a system free of non-domination.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06494303773272962559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-81378803769495596062010-12-22T08:03:14.544-05:002010-12-22T08:03:14.544-05:00Sweet Jesus. "(From the Fund link) Mr. McChes...Sweet Jesus. "(From the Fund link) Mr. McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been 'taken out of context.' He acknowledged that he is a socialist and said he was 'hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist.'" It's good to see that McChesney and Co. is putting that historical consciousness to good use. Equality for all, that is, of everyone that you're aware of; ie, cronyism at its absolute worst.Stephen Cahalyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08685010365929686988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-5372728158482208202010-12-21T19:56:13.379-05:002010-12-21T19:56:13.379-05:00Yes, Kevin, but the deception lies in the phrase a...Yes, Kevin, but the deception lies in the phrase <i>as it were</i>, because of course a market that, as George Ou puts it, would “outlaw . . . purely voluntary agreements,” is not open in any sense—not even in a slippery analogous sort of sense.<br /><br />Yoo hoo!D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-87746595626012543882010-12-21T19:52:17.604-05:002010-12-21T19:52:17.604-05:00Phew, thank goodness for the techies to explain th...Phew, thank goodness for the techies to explain things to us lit-nuts. I think I got it; the key line of what's driving it is in the Ou link. "So in the name of protecting application and content providers from services that were mistakenly viewed as extortionist, Net Neutrality regulations would actually cripple application and content providers by forcing them to buy more expensive and more congested transit bandwidth." What one interest group sees as extortion, the other the free market? Just don't ask me to repeat all this in the morning. Thanks for the links and raising the awareness.Stephen Cahalyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08685010365929686988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-71200540153920283862010-12-21T18:54:58.675-05:002010-12-21T18:54:58.675-05:00If the Google-, ATT-, and Fed-sanctioned version o...If the Google-, ATT-, and Fed-sanctioned version of "net neutrality" wins the day, then the market will be more "free and open," as it were, to those who have the resources to purchase improved access to audiences.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />K<br /><br />P.S. Two F. Prose titles?Interpolationsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-35820419533209397682010-12-21T18:30:48.869-05:002010-12-21T18:30:48.869-05:00But it is not a “power grab by business” to leave ...But it is not a “power grab by business” to leave a market free and open to competition.D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-42407485037273710702010-12-21T17:47:51.748-05:002010-12-21T17:47:51.748-05:00It's not mis-leading. There are two major camp...It's not mis-leading. There are two major camps in the debate: those who believe that Internet traffic should be treated equally (Woz, Myers, Neilson) and those who believe that Internet traffic should be "tiered" (Google, Verizon, AT&T, the Feds). Both sides claim to be ardent supporters of net neutrality, but only one is — and it ain't the latter. My only disagreement with you is a small tactical one, really. Where you see a power grab by government, I see a power grab by business who have the lobbyists to influence regulatory policy. That's the only difference I think. Net neutrality as advocated by Google, Verizon, and others sucks. <br /><br />Cheers,<br />KevinInterpolationshttp://interpolations.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-15603023575255594082010-12-21T15:14:55.185-05:002010-12-21T15:14:55.185-05:00Yes, Kevin, you have summarized the misleading arg...Yes, Kevin, you have summarized the misleading argument of net-neutrality advocates. See <a href="http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/08/sameer-solejas-misrepresentation-of-net-neutrality/" rel="nofollow">this</a> piece by George Ou, for example.D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-84967071570903531232010-12-21T15:10:08.405-05:002010-12-21T15:10:08.405-05:00Among others, net neutrality is being pushed by Go...Among others, net neutrality is being pushed by Google, the parent company of Blogger.D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-28538517194476150912010-12-21T14:40:39.697-05:002010-12-21T14:40:39.697-05:00As I understand it, the attack on Net Neutrality i...As I understand it, the attack on Net Neutrality is less about government control and more about the collusion between goverment and big business as they seek to formalize a relationship that allows ISPs like ATT to tax/charge content providers like CNN for preferential treatment and access to online audiences. Big ISPs benefit because they'd make money, and big content providers benefit because they'd buy access to audiences. A great arrangement for them, but a very bad one, indeed, for the free and open flow of information. <br /><br />Regards,<br />KevinInterpolationshttp://interpolations.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-67119901592429743732010-12-21T14:23:26.071-05:002010-12-21T14:23:26.071-05:00Thanks to you and Shelley Shaver for bringing this...Thanks to you and Shelley Shaver for bringing this to our attention. Your post, Professor Myers, and the links provide a solid framework of what the shift in power would entail. But I'm confused on what exactly is the substantive origins of "net neutrality?" A fear of loss of power that the Wikileaks drama helped expose? Paul Murphy says it's about government control but that sounds like a consequence of something else. Who's pushing it, the web companies or the regulatory committees? Or is it as vulgar as it seems, the legal, financial, and governmental authorities trying to do with information what the same forces had tried to do with banking, consolidate power into the hands of the few to regulate it more efficiently? Please tell us it's not as despicable as that. FYI: I tried to link to the Wall Street piece yesterday but it's unavailable.Stephen Cahalyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08685010365929686988noreply@blogger.com