Obama saves net neutrality, orders broadband be classified as vital service

[Simfan34]

Ugh.

I don't really know what "net neutrality" is but I am under the impression it limits the ability of the government to restrict the internet so this is bad news. What ever happened to Liberman's kill-switch? We need that.

[King]

Remember, libertarians like wormyguy claim to be anti-corporatism.

This is a gift to Netflix.

And Netflix users.

[Cory]

Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Obama.

[AggregateDemand]

Question for you all:

Suppose that hamburgers were classified as a vital service, and a policy of "hamburger neutrality" were imposed. Instead of McDonalds, Wendy's, In-N-Out etc. being able to sell hamburgers a la carte in the quantity the customer wants to eat, it would instead be legally mandated that each customer pay a flat fee in exchange for access to buffet, where each customer would be entitled to take as many hamburgers as he or she wants.

1. Do you think this will decrease, or increase, the cost of going out for burgers to the average person? By a lot, or a little?

2. Do you think that this will increase, or decrease, the typical quality of hamburgers? Will the quality of burger joints' customer service increase, or decrease?

The question is whether or not you think the restaurant should be allowed to sell a buffet service for 10 hamburgers per day, adjusted to suit the corporation's unique supply and demand, which may not reflect the market. For instance, 1 hamburger per day on weekends and 13.6 hamburgers on weekdays. You also have to assume that hamburgers function like real estate, and the cost of adding more sq footage is capital-intensive.

[Free Bird]

Ugh.

I don't really know what "net neutrality" is but I am under the impression it limits the ability of the government to restrict the internet so this is bad news. What ever happened to Liberman's kill-switch? We need that.

This should explain it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrpGV_Lwmw4

[Likely Voter]

I look forward to Cruz and GOPers running on repealing net neutrality in 2016. I'm sure it will be a big winner.

[AggregateDemand]

The anti-throttling practices will not increase access to bandwidth. Companies will just market their bandwidth more accurately, rather than overstating the actual bandwidth available during peak time. In effect, customers are losing the incredible bandwidth they enjoy during off-peak hours.

The flat-rate unlimited data services already encourage inefficient usage. Disallowing price discrimination will lead to further inefficient allocation of resources.

Personally, the post roads clause makes me think the founding fathers had an elementary understanding of the economics and national importance of communications infrastructure. Unfortunately, they had no foreknowledge of telephones, radio, tv, or internet/wireless data. Therefore, the government should probably be investing a great deal of money in communications infrastructure, like they invest in the federal road system, rather than auctioning the rights to various communications spectra.

Unfortunately, communications infrastructure spending would require us to be competent administrators of federal funds, and I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.

[Paul Kemp]

Ugh.

I don't really know what "net neutrality" is but I am under the impression it limits the ability of the government to restrict the internet so this is bad news. What ever happened to Liberman's kill-switch? We need that.

This should explain it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrpGV_Lwmw4

...

[IceSpear]

So will Reddit love Obama now, or does muh NSA make him an eternal Satan?

[IceSpear]

Question for you all:

Suppose that hamburgers were classified as a vital service, and a policy of "hamburger neutrality" were imposed. Instead of McDonalds, Wendy's, In-N-Out etc. being able to sell hamburgers a la carte in the quantity the customer wants to eat, it would instead be legally mandated that each customer pay a flat fee in exchange for access to buffet, where each customer would be entitled to take as many hamburgers as he or she wants.

1. Do you think this will decrease, or increase, the cost of going out for burgers to the average person? By a lot, or a little?

2. Do you think that this will increase, or decrease, the typical quality of hamburgers? Will the quality of burger joints' customer service increase, or decrease?

You and Ted Stevens would get along well.

[Foucaulf]

Since I'm moping over my econ midterms right now anyways, I'll take a crack at this:

The Panama canal currently operates on the model that each ship is charged for each time it uses the canal, and larger ships are charged a higher fee than smaller ones. Suppose that the Panamanian government adopted a different business model: each ship, no matter how big or small, that wants to use the canal pays a flat fee every month, and can use the canal as many times as it wants.

1. Will this increase, or decrease, the cost for the average ship to use the Panama canal?

Decrease if the ship industry is oligopolistic or if there are economies of scale in building larger ships (fuel efficiencies and all that).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A greater incentive if supply increases due to (1).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At this point you can see this is an ill-defined question.


Here's a more serious observation: the cost of broadband, unlike many other infrastructural projects, is still on the decline, measured in terms of bits per dollar. Telecoms networks in America, and indeed everywhere else, don't have an exclusive right to research better broadband either. Even if a net-neutrality policy fixes more short-run costs, the shrinking of variable cost over time makes the decision to continue functioning profitable. This takes into account all the sunk investment telecoms networks have in their infrastructure already.

The contrarians in this thread are talking about how net neutrality would create inefficiencies, or deviate from the first-best. But this is ignoring that consumers are restrained in their choices too, as well as the decision to consume broadband at any given time (due to, you know, jobs). It's far more interesting to think of the "second-best" scenario.

[Person Man]

Question for you all:

Suppose that hamburgers were classified as a vital service, and a policy of "hamburger neutrality" were imposed. Instead of McDonalds, Wendy's, In-N-Out etc. being able to sell hamburgers a la carte in the quantity the customer wants to eat, it would instead be legally mandated that each customer pay a flat fee in exchange for access to buffet, where each customer would be entitled to take as many hamburgers as he or she wants.

1. Do you think this will decrease, or increase, the cost of going out for burgers to the average person? By a lot, or a little?

2. Do you think that this will increase, or decrease, the typical quality of hamburgers? Will the quality of burger joints' customer service increase, or decrease?

You and Ted Stevens would get along well.

Its a series of t00bz!!!
Its a series of tubes!!!

Seriously, this is an issue that Government needs to assert itself lest a totally unaccountable private Government asserts itself in the power vacuum it creates.

[Free Bird]

How is it at all right that certain websites are itemized on bills? Isn't that arbitrary and shady?

[bedstuy]

Here's what's going unsaid here, there is an engineering debate here.

Right now the internet has a system for exchanging packets of data that is democratic.  All the data is treated the same on the internet.  I think everyone can see how that's a good thing on the basis of openness and fairness.

The anti-net neutrality people are arguing that certain applications may require prioritization to allow the necessary speed from point A to point B. 

I don't see the need for it.  We keep increasing bandwidth to keep pace with new applications.  We have 100 gb/sec optical fiber being adopted.  And, when you install that higher capacity, you actually save money because it's more efficient on a bit/sec basis.  On top of that, if you're in a business that is very intensive on bandwidth like streaming video, you have strategies to keep up with demand like co-locating.  That's a strategy Netflix has used frequently if I'm not mistaken.

How is it at all right that certain websites are itemized on bills? Isn't that arbitrary and shady?

What are you talking about?

[Simfan34]

However I approve of Obama's increasing use of executive orders; not that I necessarily agree with what actions he is taking with them, but I wholeheartedly support his using them.

We need more bandwidth, more gigabit networks, I'm not an internet expert but if this helps I'm all for it.

[AggregateDemand]

I don't see the need for it.  We keep increasing bandwidth to keep pace with new applications.  We have 100 gb/sec optical fiber being adopted.

That's the problem. Tragedy of the Commons.

The same concept cited by Democrats when they argue that low gasoline taxes and lack of use-taxes have led to sprawl and over exploitation of real estate for roadways. It's actually low property tax and incompetent use of income tax, but that's for another time.

If we are going to invite tragedy of the commons, we have to develop a game plan for the efficient expansion and utilization of bandwidth.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm pleasantly surprised that he's taking a stand to do the right thing.

[Simfan34]

I don't see the need for it.  We keep increasing bandwidth to keep pace with new applications.  We have 100 gb/sec optical fiber being adopted.

That's the problem. Tragedy of the Commons.

The same concept cited by Democrats when they argue that low gasoline taxes and lack of use-taxes have led to sprawl and over exploitation of real estate for roadways. It's actually low property tax and incompetent use of income tax, but that's for another time.

If we are going to invite tragedy of the commons, we have to develop a game plan for the efficient expansion and utilization of bandwidth.

What evidence is there to conclude we are facing some sort of common-use problem in terms of internet bandwidth? I'm curious if there are any empirical findings or games modelling usage patterns that would support this.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ugh.

I don't really know what "net neutrality" is but I am under the impression it limits the ability of the government to restrict the internet so this is bad news. What ever happened to Liberman's kill-switch? We need that.

Nope, net neutrality kind of implies regulation. Ironically, there are a lot of libertarian types for net neutrality.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Question for you all:

Suppose that hamburgers were classified as a vital service, and a policy of "hamburger neutrality" were imposed. Instead of McDonalds, Wendy's, In-N-Out etc. being able to sell hamburgers a la carte in the quantity the customer wants to eat, it would instead be legally mandated that each customer pay a flat fee in exchange for access to buffet, where each customer would be entitled to take as many hamburgers as he or she wants.

1. Do you think this will decrease, or increase, the cost of going out for burgers to the average person? By a lot, or a little?

2. Do you think that this will increase, or decrease, the typical quality of hamburgers? Will the quality of burger joints' customer service increase, or decrease?

I don't think net neutrality implies buffet / unmetered Internet. It does imply that if it is metered, that it's metered the same way whether you're using NetFlix or Streampix on Comcast.

[Beet]

I don't see the need for it.  We keep increasing bandwidth to keep pace with new applications.  We have 100 gb/sec optical fiber being adopted.

That's the problem. Tragedy of the Commons.

The same concept cited by Democrats when they argue that low gasoline taxes and lack of use-taxes have led to sprawl and over exploitation of real estate for roadways. It's actually low property tax and incompetent use of income tax, but that's for another time.

If we are going to invite tragedy of the commons, we have to develop a game plan for the efficient expansion and utilization of bandwidth.

Land is limited, and development encroaches on environmental perogatives. Land use debates are about the nature of capacity (how development is spaced), not the amount of capacity (unless you're talking about extreme environmentalists who want to limit human population). Expanding bandwidth does not face those problems. It's simply a question of increasing investment, which can be done without bandwidth discrimination. Back in 2007, anti-net neutrality advocates were predicting that YouTube would soon crash the Internet.

[King]

AD is right. We don't want to mine too much of that internet and run out of it. Tragedy of the commons indeed.

[bedstuy]

I don't see the need for it.  We keep increasing bandwidth to keep pace with new applications.  We have 100 gb/sec optical fiber being adopted.

That's the problem. Tragedy of the Commons.

The same concept cited by Democrats when they argue that low gasoline taxes and lack of use-taxes have led to sprawl and over exploitation of real estate for roadways. It's actually low property tax and incompetent use of income tax, but that's for another time.

If we are going to invite tragedy of the commons, we have to develop a game plan for the efficient expansion and utilization of bandwidth.

I know that's an economic heuristic device, but does it actually apply?

What is the common-resource being depleted?

I'm not an internet expert or an engineer so I have to defer to experts on this subject.  When I've heard them speak, they all seem to be in favor of net neutrality.  They all seem to think fiber optic improvements, opening up new areas of spectrum and various other technological developments will continue to keep pace.

[AggregateDemand]

Land is limited, and development encroaches on environmental perogatives. Land use debates are about the nature of capacity (how development is spaced), not the amount of capacity (unless you're talking about extreme environmentalists who want to limit human population). Expanding bandwidth does not face those problems. It's simply a question of increasing investment, which can be done without bandwidth discrimination. Back in 2007, anti-net neutrality advocates were predicting that YouTube would soon crash the Internet.

Think about the amount of energy used to keep computers and personal devices running 24/7 so they can exchange packets that may or may not be efficiently employed. It is not an insignificant amount.

Furthermore, tragedy of the commons is not specific to physical resources. It can also apply to zero-sum-games like pricing leverage. Arbitrarily giving pricing power to some companies will probably not lead in a good direction.

If the market moves in a direction you don't like, you cannot simply wave the wand of government fiat and expect the problem to disappear. The underlying economic issues that are moving the market away from democratization have to be addressed, not ignored.

[King]

Absolutely correct AD. Peak internet is on the horizon. We need to invest in alternative sources of communication.