Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

When I searched for this topic, I arrived at a thread that was seven years old.

 

What are people's opinion about this topic?

 

My own opinion is that most people with opinions about this topic don't know what it actually is. They hear the words "net" and "neutrality" and assume that means unfettered access to their porn now and forever. Or free speech. Or being charged the same thing no matter what they download. Or everything downloading at the same speed. Or some other thing they are in favor of. But I can't verify that it means any of these things, and it's hard to even figure out what it actually is beyond a bunch of platitudes.

 

Does anybody have any details, in terms of actual concrete, technical facts?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that service providers cannot prioritize their content based upon their own standards and which content gets delivered first, fastest, at what price.  It means that individual companies are not allowed to engage in contractual agreements with their customers.

 

 

Edited by A is A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I searched for this topic, I arrived at a thread that was seven years old.

 

What are people's opinion about this topic?

 

My own opinion is that most people with opinions about this topic don't know what it actually is. They hear the words "net" and "neutrality" and assume that means unfettered access to their porn now and forever. Or free speech. Or being charged the same thing no matter what they download. Or everything downloading at the same speed. Or some other thing they are in favor of. But I can't verify that it means any of these things, and it's hard to even figure out what it actually is beyond a bunch of platitudes.

 

Does anybody have any details, in terms of actual concrete, technical facts?

No, they're gonna have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it™.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that service providers cannot prioritize their content based upon their own standards and which content gets delivered first, fastest, at what price.  It means that individual companies are not allowed to engage in contractual agreements with their customers.

 

Yeah, see, your explanation here is the problem I'm talking about. That's just a platitude and in practice it could mean almost anything.

 

One interpretation of your description would not, for instance, help Google or Netflix (two big proponents of NN) and you could even argue it would be devastating to the their business--so I'm skeptical that your explanation is complete. Those big Internet companies pay $billions to get super-extra-fast access to homes that "normal" companies do not. I can't imagine they are lobbying to kill that, so what's the full story? I'm still trying to figure it out.

 

I found this article (particularly the diagram) very enlightening (although it still doesn't tell the whole story imho):

 

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my reading on it, NN would set prices and usage by forcing providers to treat everyone the same.  Proponents I've read said it would reduce favoritism and create fairness in internet use.  Tech critics I've read say it will cause a decentive for providers to maintain or invest in the tech/bandwidth increases since their profit is throttled, resulting in supply issues in the long term.  Sort of the bandwidth version of energy (my observation not theirs).  

 

To be honest. I really do not know the internal mechanism of internet infrastucture to really comment authoritatively on how this will ripple through the industry.  

 

I do know it violates the providers rights ethically and it also violates basic economic principles of price controls so that is good enough for me to quantify it as wrong and call it there.   

Edited by Spiral Architect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article of the Objective Standard is very well written, it is a little old but the principles are sound and apply equally today:

 

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/winter-2008/net-neutrality/

 

Yes, this is what I was looking for.

 

So the tl;dr is that NN in its most vague sense is an attempt to regulate what ISPs can do with their equipment. Which is to say that NN is anti-free market.

 

Amazing, since you hear so many "Internet libertarians" coming out in favor of NN based on the name alone.

 

That said, the proponents are correct in saying that a fully-free system would allow Comcast, for instance, to block access to this website, for instance. While that in particular is far-fetched, certainly favorable deals with the politicians who favor them is within the realm of probable. Of course what Google doesn't like to talk about is that they can do this way easier and far more effectively if they wanted to. They could diddle with search results or even block your email (viz. an email fundraising campaign) if they wanted to. Yet for some reason Google et. al.'s political campaign is working better than Comcast's...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet for some reason Google et. al.'s political campaign is working better than Comcast's...

 

Net neutrality is an outgrowth of egalitarianism, which seems to be rearing its ugly head in several of the currently popular policy debates like income "distribution", minimum wage, and the female pay gap for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, see, your explanation here is the problem I'm talking about. That's just a platitude and in practice it could mean almost anything.

 

One interpretation of your description would not, for instance, help Google or Netflix (two big proponents of NN) and you could even argue it would be devastating to the their business--so I'm skeptical that your explanation is complete. Those big Internet companies pay $billions to get super-extra-fast access to homes that "normal" companies do not. I can't imagine they are lobbying to kill that, so what's the full story? I'm still trying to figure it out.

No, they're not lobbying to kill those deals, they're lobbying for the government to fix the price on those deals (because they don't want to end up having to pay more an more).

 

I suppose that to the extent Comcast has a government enforced monopoly on the ISP market, the current arrangement is indeed unfair to Google and Netflix. But, just like with Tesla in the other thread, that doesn't excuse Google and Netflix lobbying for special privileges of their own. They should instead be lobbying for the elimination of whatever privileges the big ISPs enjoy.

 

And I'm also not convinced that the supposed monopoly the big ISPs have is all that government enforced. Those accusations also stink of a progressive agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×