[Novalug] Save Net Neutrality

Jameson C. Burt jameson_novalug@coost.com
Mon Feb 10 11:49:20 EST 2014


Let's hear what the quintessential libertarian Friedrich Hayek says
(Margaret Thatcher slammed Hayek's book "Road to Surfdom" on another parliamentarian's desk and said "This is what I believe"): 

"The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. 
For instance, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements. 
An extensive system of social services is fully compatible 
with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields 
where the system of competition is impracticable. 
For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories 
cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. 
But a few exceptions do not prove that we should suppress competition 
where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition 
will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, 
to break up monopolies - these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity."
-- Friedrich Von Hayek; from 'Road to Serfdom' itself

We should all consider avoiding that gall called news,
and listen to with some understanding, such as Hayek or someone else
with some training in mathematics/statistics (not the innumerate).
We should listen to economists like Friedrich Hayek (libertarian), 
Greg Mankiw (a George Bush advisor and seller of the most used economics textbook), 
Tyler Cowen (libertarian at George Mason University), 
Paul Krugman (nobel in economics, labeling himself "liberal").

Ideals (perfected in the head without input from the senses) are always wrong,
becoming in their perfection unquestionably "evil".
How might we look at such issues empirically?
We might ask how it affects the GDP, some measure of happiness, or several competing measures.
Following the libertarian approach (I was raised in Montana, worked in Wyoming,
was a member of a college Objectivist Society, and have read Ayn Rand), 
we'd have all toll roads, and probably new ownership in every neighborhood -- a gated country.
However, the poor could not reasonably move to places with more opportunity and GDP might underperform.
Government has no morality (I agree), so maximizing GDP would not spend money 
on ZMP's (Zero Marginal Product people) such as old people and the infirm.
If they can't help society or even help themselves, let them die the useless lives they live,
although we might get more happiness without corpses on the street.
Bryan Cowan, a George Mason libertarian, appears to largely follow this line,
but he rationalizes into the realm of ideals by calling most such ZMP's "underserving".
Intervention by government is a choice, not a moral issue, at least not for government, 
and certainly wasn't a historical function of government.
So, we choose what our government does, but on what OBJECTIVE non-idealistic criteria?

We might follow the Golden Mean, 
since no economist favors unthrottled monopoly and only some minor economists favor full government ownership.
I favor the separation of infrastructure (copper and fiber) from telecommunication services (telephone, TV, internet),
somewhat like the ISP environment in the late 1990's.

There should be no charge for telephone services, 
since it's just an internet protocol.
Indeed, the Consumer Report Magazine's top rated company Ooma charges $3.70 per month.
Why $3.70 per month?
That's for taxes, otherwise I'd pay nothing (except for the initial modem purchase).

As for Net Neutrality, I don't know.
What would an empirical (economist) decide or predict for some economic measures?

I myself have a static IP address, a triviality for which I must pay twice the householder rate.
For this, my ISP assures me that they allocate full unthrottled bandwidth to the possible detriment of my neighbors.
Nonetheless, I sometimes wonder if an upstream ISP throttles what comes into my ISP.

Think with data, a model, or their predictions; don't dogmatize.


 


On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:22:12PM -0500, Omari Norman wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:37 PM, James Ewing Cottrell III <
> JECottrell3@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > I would be that Everyone here is In Favor of Net Neutrality.
> >
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> 
> > I would even go so far as to say that if you're not, then You Don't
> > Belong Here.
> >
> 
> So you're the arbiter of that?
> 
> I do not favor government regulation of the Internet.
> 
> If the fear is that ISPs will control the Internet, then formulate policies
> that encourage a competitive ISP marketplace, so that multiple ISPs can
> keep each other in check.
> 
> Government regulation encourages regulated entities to capture the
> regulators, stifle competition and innovation, and increase prices.  Have
> we learned nothing from government regulation of taxicabs, railroads, and
> air routes?
> 
> "Net neutrality" is a categorically bad idea. I oppose it entirely.



-- 
Jameson C. Burt, NJ9L   Fairfax, Virginia, USA
jameson@coost.com       http://www.coost.com
(202) 690-0380 (work)



More information about the Novalug mailing list