Friday, March 4, 2011

Net Neutered

I posted my latest criticism of the FCC Net Neutrality ruling at Free Republic and got slammed by an FCC apologist know-it-all.

I plead guilty only to the charge of not making my main point clear: Free markets allocate resources way more efficiently than a government central-planning committee can.

Progressives love attaching warm and fuzzy feel good names like "Net Neutrality" on their statist projects in order to mask their true intent: Taming the digital wild west known as the internet.

Here's the Net Neutrality Problem in a Nutshell
The story goes that Level 3 Communications, which handles Netflix’s Internet traffic, says that, all of a sudden, Comcast started demanding more money to accept said traffic.

The problem is that there really doesn’t seem to be an easy way out of this mess. Clearly streaming media is taking over the world, but there’s one problem: bandwidth isn’t free, and that’s Comcast’s biggest complaint. If you want Comcast to carry this or that stream, then you can’t expect Comcast to do so at a loss, right?
Granted, I’ve no idea how much it costs Comcast to run and maintain a broadband network, but I recognize that they’re in business to make money. (Nicholas Deleon – Crunchgear)
The point here is that the content providers, the infrastructure people and the ISPs will work it out; they always have.  Nobody wants to make customers mad, since mad customers take their money elsewhere.  That concept is foreign to a monopolistic government bureaucrat.

With the Net Neutrality decision, the Federal Government has picked winners and losers.  Here are a few headlines following internet FCC's power grab:

StockMarketsReview.com: FCC Decision Disappoints Comcast

MarketWatch: Netflix Jumps

So government poobahs who have no idea what they're monkeying with end up swinging markets and stifling technology.

A WSJ article asks, "Is This the Peak for Netflix?"  The peak, if it has happened, has nothing to do with the FCC decision and everything to do with competition from the likes of Apple TV, Amazon, Roku, Boxee and Google TV.

Technology and the markets move fast, government needs to get the hell out of the way and stop blocking innovation and competition.

More reading:
Net Neutrality and the TV Wars
CATO - The FCC Should Not Regulate the Internet

9 comments:

Trestin said...

The current rate of technology growth make such so called problem but a flash in the pan. The real reason for all of this is control.

Shane Atwell said...

The Objective Standard has a good piece on Net Neutrality as well (w/ free audio):
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/net-neutrality.asp

An “open” and “free” Internet cannot be achieved by means of further FCC regulations. Extending FCC controls to the wireless spectrum would not “open” anything or free anyone; rather it would further violate the rights of Americans to produce and trade according to their own judgment and thus thwart this vital new realm of life-serving technology. It would unleash a torrent of government control over every aspect of the Internet, granting the government power to dictate how content is to be delivered and at what price, making it less profitable for Internet service providers to invest in costly infrastructure, and thereby quashing their incentive to innovate.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

Trestin took the words right out of my mouth.

Control of We the People is the main objective of every single regulatory agency, from the FCC to HUD, ATFE, Dept. of Human Services, Dept. of Agriculture, etc.

Leticia said...

It is also about greed and how much they push to consumer to fork out the dough.

Divine Theatre said...

leticia, you say "greed" like it is a bad thing.

Jersey McJones said...

This is sooooooo stupid. There was a time, not that long ago, that anyone who was even the least bit libertarian and truly conservative agreed with Net Neutrality. If you are so stupid as to believe that carriers wouldn't ruin the net, then really, get you're friggin' head examined. They are just CARRIERS. They shouldn't have that kind of power. Take away Net Neutrality, and soon enough you'd see blacklisting, you'd see the web no longer there for you, you'd have LESS ACCESS TO THE MARKETS YOU WANT. You really have to be on stupid-pills to be against Net Nuetrality. This is a handful of sleazy carriers trying to control content and you guys are too stupid to see it. JESUS CHRIST GUYS!!!! THIS IS CONSERVATIVE, LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT!!!! THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE!!!! YOU CAN"T HAVE A FREE MARKET WHEN YOU ALLOW MONOPOLIES TO RIG THE GAME FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!

JMJ

Finntann said...

As opposed to a handful of sleazy politicians or political appointees trying to control content?

What exactly do you think this government does well JMJ?

TSA?

Border Patrol?

Medicare/Medicaid?

What?

Silverfiddle said...

Jersey: You have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, you conflate "conservative" and "libertarian" to the point that they are the same to you. They are not.

Conservatism really doesn't have anything to do with this isses. Libertarianism does, and you've got it 180 degrees backwards.

Libertarians are against government regulation of free markets, especially the internet, which has gotten along fine without Benito Genachowski and Kaiser Copps.

Your ignorant screed belies your complete ignorance of markets and explains why you are a flaming liberal.

Who ever made money withholding products from the consumer?

Lisa said...

Jersey just wants anything that Obama puts forth. All liberals do because of their never ending devotion to him.
Next we will hear "He's just a doctor and shouldn't have that kind of power to make those decisions". If you want to know the best course of treatment is Kathleen Sibelius will be the one with the power to decide.