* I think it shouldn't matter what the inventors of the Internet think. The fact that they were on top of their game 40 years ago is not in any way an indication that they understand net neutrality better than today's experts.
* Vint Cerf in particular tends to say random things that don't even mean anything. I haven't watched/read anything recent by Bob Kahn.
* I don't understand your last paragraph. Economics and ideology are not different things. One talks of "economic ideology," "political ideology," etc. Ideology is only useful here to the extent that it tells us something about the economics of the situation. All the arguments for or against net neutrality are ultimately economic in nature; otherwise they are not relevant. The need for market regulation and consumer protection is entirely an economic argument.
I am opposed to Net Neutrality, but at the same time I don't know if we have a free market in Internet carriers. It's a business that is hard to break into because you have to get permission to dig up roads and pass wires over people's houses. Going by worldwide experience, you'll end up having very few players in such markets.
But still in the long run, it will work out better than getting government to enforce Net Neutrality, because then the ISP's won't have any incentive to improve network speeds.
Thats an interesting argument: that preventing regulations will incentivize ISPs to improve network speeds, or in other words, allowing a free market would incentivize ISP innovation.
In a sense, both parties are using the "stifling innovation" cry to lobby for/against net neutrality.
If I were to summarize the entire net neutrality debate, its this:
Google is making crazy amount of ad money, which ISPs want a share of, and Google does not want to share. If ISPs get fatter pipes, Google can make more ad money.
So then the real question is: Is it wrong for Google to not want to share its ad revenues with the ISPS?
Comments 4
* I think it shouldn't matter what the inventors of the Internet think. The fact that they were on top of their game 40 years ago is not in any way an indication that they understand net neutrality better than today's experts.
* Vint Cerf in particular tends to say random things that don't even mean anything. I haven't watched/read anything recent by Bob Kahn.
* I don't understand your last paragraph. Economics and ideology are not different things. One talks of "economic ideology," "political ideology," etc. Ideology is only useful here to the extent that it tells us something about the economics of the situation. All the arguments for or against net neutrality are ultimately economic in nature; otherwise they are not relevant. The need for market regulation and consumer protection is entirely an economic argument.
Reply
Reply
But still in the long run, it will work out better than getting government to enforce Net Neutrality, because then the ISP's won't have any incentive to improve network speeds.
Reply
In a sense, both parties are using the "stifling innovation" cry to lobby for/against net neutrality.
If I were to summarize the entire net neutrality debate, its this:
Google is making crazy amount of ad money, which ISPs want a share of, and Google does not want to share. If ISPs get fatter pipes, Google can make more ad money.
So then the real question is:
Is it wrong for Google to not want to share its ad revenues with the ISPS?
I don't think there's an easy answer to this.
Reply
Leave a comment