PDA

View Full Version : How to Solve the Net Neutrality Issue




Omphfullas Zamboni
11-03-2009, 03:10 PM
Hope Is Not Enough

Ashwin Navin, cofounder of BitTorrent, also says he doesn't support government regulation of the Net, even though his name appears on an OIC letter. He says he'd rather see Internet service providers come up with a self-regulatory plan based on a pledge to keep the Net open and the creation of a third body to arbitrate. Indeed, Navin says that his own company's scuffle with Comcast was ultimately solved without formal rules after a netizen noticed that Comcast was degrading service and brought the matter to the public's attention.

Continued at:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/How-to-Solve-the-Net-Neutrality-Issue-68491.html?wlc=1257281988

Basically, the article points out that using an independent third-party arbiter may be more preferable to using the FCC.

I hope you find this useful.

Cheers,
Omphfullas Zamboni

axiomata
11-03-2009, 04:28 PM
This is pretty much what Ostrom won the Nobel prize in economics for this year for.

sdczen
11-03-2009, 05:47 PM
We can solve the Net Neutrality issue by doing the following:

1 - Open up the "last mile" to open free market competition. (The last mile is the wire/cable that is pulled to each house i.e. cable TV/internet & telephone.) Currently, the last mile is owned by one company. That is why Time warner or comcast have entire cities without any competition.

2 - Abolish the FCC and the FTC. That should lift enough regulations that 'any company' can offer internet access.

Imagine what the internet would look like if they 'regulated' how many websites or how they were designed back in 1994. The internet is truly the last crumb of a truly free market and look how quickly it evolves. Axe the government sponsored ISP monopoly!

Omphfullas Zamboni
11-03-2009, 06:38 PM
This is pretty much what Ostrom won the Nobel prize in economics for this year for.

Interesting. Can you explain any further?

axiomata
11-04-2009, 12:32 AM
Some background on Ostrom. (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/elinor-ostrom%E2%80%99s-nobel-prize-in-economics/)

The author of this article is an Austrian economist (he blogs at http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/ ) and was interestingly in the process of writing a book about Ostrom when she won.

Basically, Ostrom performed many empirical studies on how people around the world deal with tragedy of the commons problems. Of course the simple libertarian solution is to privatize it. This is no doubt true but often people haven't figured out how to do it. Take for example ocean fisheries. Often it is the case that it makes the most sense, from a business perspective, to overfish. This wouldn't be the case if there was a underwater fence and you owned the fish inside since if you fish them to extinction you consume all your capital. But since people don't own the ocean, and even if they did, you can't really put a fence around your property, people have to think of other ways to prevent the tragedy of the commons.

Usually this just the heavy hand of government, regulating the tragedy in question, but Ostrom showed empirically, and it makes sense theoretically to me as well, that voluntary self-regulation works better.

Statists would contend that such self-regulation is proof that the market failed, but a broader view of what a free market really is shows that self regulation is a component of the free market. Rules in and of themselves are not bad, as long as they are instituted without coercion by free peoples to improve their welfare without arbitrarily infringing on others'.

I drew the parallel to this Net Neutrality quote because most people agree with the view of Net Neutrality advocates that an open and untiered net is a good thing, we just differ on the best way to keep it such. A push for self-regulation is a good thing.

kahless
11-04-2009, 12:24 PM
I like to use an example that people can more closely relate to:

Take for example if the telcos owned parts of the road to my home or business and one them decides to prevent certain cars or people from driving on their part of the road to get to my property. The town or telco will also not allow an easement to a competitors road that would allow access to my private property. This scenario would adversely effect the use of my private property or business.

The government then proposes a regulation called "road neutrality" that states the telco companies cannot prevent people or cars from driving to my property unless they allow an easement so I have access to a competitors road way.

Without "road neutrality" only the private property rights of the telco are protected. With "road neutrality" both the telco and home/business owners private property rights are protected.

Elwar
11-04-2009, 12:31 PM
I like to use an example that people can more closely relate to:

Take for example if the telcos owned parts of the road to my home or business and one them decides to prevent certain cars or people from driving on their part of the road to get to my property. The town or telco will also not allow an easement to a competitors road that would allow access to my private property. This scenario would adversely effect the use of my private property or business.

The government then proposes a regulation called "road neutrality" that states the telco companies cannot prevent people or cars from driving to my property unless they allow an easement so I have access to a competitors road way.

Without "road neutrality" only the private property rights of the telco are protected. With "road neutrality" both the telco and home/business owners private property rights are protected.

That scenario would be accurate if everyone had access to several ways of getting to their house such as by air or water and road.

Telcos have airwaves, land lines, cable, microwave, satellite...

To get government involved at this juncture is like requiring all roads have gravel laid down so that everyone has equal road quality and then having the lawmakers involved in the gravel road business for decades to come.

kahless
11-04-2009, 12:53 PM
That scenario would be accurate if everyone had access to several ways of getting to their house such as by air or water and road.

Telcos have airwaves, land lines, cable, microwave, satellite...

To get government involved at this juncture is like requiring all roads have gravel laid down so that everyone has equal road quality and then having the lawmakers involved in the gravel road business for decades to come.

The point in that example is that they do not have several ways if you strict the only route to and from ones property and also prevent an easement to a competitor.

sdczen
11-04-2009, 01:47 PM
In your scenario, what happens when the "regulator" (the government) decides that certain types of cars are not allowed on those roads? Now that they are the regulator of the roads, they can halt, limit or decide which cars go where.

The point here is the Telco's have a government sponsored monopoly on the last mile of cable (or the road to your house as you put it). Why not remove the monopoly of the last mile and open it up to anyone that can service it.

This is the typical problem when government gets involved. I'll take my chances with the free market......if there was one.



I like to use an example that people can more closely relate to:

Take for example if the telcos owned parts of the road to my home or business and one them decides to prevent certain cars or people from driving on their part of the road to get to my property. The town or telco will also not allow an easement to a competitors road that would allow access to my private property. This scenario would adversely effect the use of my private property or business.

The government then proposes a regulation called "road neutrality" that states the telco companies cannot prevent people or cars from driving to my property unless they allow an easement so I have access to a competitors road way.

Without "road neutrality" only the private property rights of the telco are protected. With "road neutrality" both the telco and home/business owners private property rights are protected.

Elwar
11-04-2009, 01:49 PM
The point in that example is that they do not have several ways if you strict the only route to and from ones property and also prevent an easement to a competitor.

That's the thing though...competition is over-taking any need for Net Neutrality.

There are several ways of getting Internet access.

There are several ways of ISPs transmitting their packets.

There is no monopoly.

There is no boogy man.

anaconda
11-04-2009, 02:22 PM
Rules in and of themselves are not bad, as long as they are instituted without coercion by free peoples to improve their welfare without arbitrarily infringing on others'.


How do we enforce the rules without "coercion?" And, if "we all agree to them" isn't this the same thing as a democratic government? Theoretically, at least?

kahless
11-04-2009, 03:55 PM
In your scenario, what happens when the "regulator" (the government) decides that certain types of cars are not allowed on those roads? Now that they are the regulator of the roads, they can halt, limit or decide which cars go where.

That is not being promoted my example. In my example the regulation is needed to stop the telco from infringing on the private property rights of the business or home owner.



The point here is the Telco's have a government sponsored monopoly on the last mile of cable (or the road to your house as you put it). Why not remove the monopoly of the last mile and open it up to anyone that can service it.
This is the typical problem when government gets involved. I'll take my chances with the free market......if there was one.

In my example the regulation removes the monopoly issue. The telco has a choice to either let traffic pass or allow an easement to a competitor. If they do not then they are damaging the private property of the business or homeowner. The neutrality regulation prevents that from happening.

kahless
11-04-2009, 04:00 PM
That's the thing though...competition is over-taking any need for Net Neutrality.

There are several ways of getting Internet access.

There are several ways of ISPs transmitting their packets.

There is no monopoly.

There is no boogy man.

You cannot compare wireless to direct access (fiber, DS3, cable, T1, dsl, etc). I am for protecting the private property rights of the business and homeowner in allowing them to chose a competitor. The telcos private property rights would not be infringed upon if they would allow last mile competition.

axiomata
11-04-2009, 04:54 PM
How do we enforce the rules without "coercion?" And, if "we all agree to them" isn't this the same thing as a democratic government? Theoretically, at least?

If it helps, I'm a minarchist.

Matt Collins
08-02-2010, 04:40 PM
YouTube - The Open Internet and Lessons from the Ma Bell Era (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS_udd5K91o&feature=player_embedded)

WaltM
08-02-2010, 04:43 PM
Continued at:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/How-to-Solve-the-Net-Neutrality-Issue-68491.html?wlc=1257281988

Basically, the article points out that using an independent third-party arbiter may be more preferable to using the FCC.

I hope you find this useful.

Cheers,
Omphfullas Zamboni

may be preferable to some people, but no guarantee to be free from bias, abuse, corruption and counterproductivity.

Vessol
08-02-2010, 04:57 PM
IF there is a monopoly in ISP's, it would be the governments fault.

WaltM
08-02-2010, 05:06 PM
IF there is a monopoly in ISP's, it would be the governments fault.

why is that?

do we currently have a monopoly?

Vessol
08-02-2010, 05:08 PM
why is that?

do we currently have a monopoly?

I'm not well-versed, but I know that a company has to go through a lot of effort and paperwork in order to get the right to lay cable lines or to offer service through existing cable lines.

LibForestPaul
08-02-2010, 05:13 PM
If I wanted to start laying down wire and hook people up to the 'INTERNET' what steps would I need to undertake?
1. Cost, capital expenditures - what do I need to buy
2. Permits and legal fees - who wants to stop me
3. leases and contracts - one end goes to the customer, the other end goes to the 'INTERNET'.

If I wanted to start setting up wifi spots and hook people up to the 'INTERNET' what steps would I need to undertake?

WaltM
08-02-2010, 05:40 PM
I'm not well-versed, but I know that a company has to go through a lot of effort and paperwork in order to get the right to lay cable lines or to offer service through existing cable lines.

and that's the government's fault?

WaltM
08-02-2010, 05:41 PM
If I wanted to start laying down wire and hook people up to the 'INTERNET' what steps would I need to undertake?
1. Cost, capital expenditures - what do I need to buy
2. Permits and legal fees - who wants to stop me
3. leases and contracts - one end goes to the customer, the other end goes to the 'INTERNET'.

If I wanted to start setting up wifi spots and hook people up to the 'INTERNET' what steps would I need to undertake?

even permits and legal fees can theoretically be bypassed if you only use private property.