Comments on: Net Neutrality? Government Is Never Neutral

By: Iconoclast

Iconoclast — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 17:18:17 +0000

I"On the one hand, you don't seem to understand the term 'secondary intervention.'"

Proof by assertion. Fallacious and Meaningless.

"On the other hand, yes, the purpose of constitutional amendments is to assist the state in continuing on its monopoly in power by putting the putative beneficiaries of those amendments back to sleep."

Remove the shackle first, then the unshackled can walk without clutches. But remind the clutched shackled person that s/he is still shackled so that s/he will not uncritically accept that shackled.

By: Thomas L. Knapp

Thomas L. Knapp — Sun, 21 Sep 2014 03:01:12 +0000

On the one hand, you don't seem to understand the term "secondary intervention."

On the other hand, yes, the purpose of constitutional amendments is to assist the state in continuing on its monopoly in power by putting the putative beneficiaries of those amendments back to sleep.

By: Iconoclast

Iconoclast — Sun, 21 Sep 2014 00:24:13 +0000

So, to you, Constitutional Amendments, evidently secondary legislations as they are, must also be " additional doses of statism undertaken for the purpose of keeping the primary interventions stable/sustainable. They are net increases in both intent and effect and at both the front entryway and the rear exit." Therefore, Constitutional Amendments, which actually tells the state not to oppress the citizens so harshly, are not needed.

Yeah right, the government rigged the market to grant Internet-providing cronies monopolistic privileges, while Internet-providing cronies censor the Internet on government's behalf. Phillip & Mary granted the Stationers' Guild the monopolistic rights to print books, as long as the Stationers' Guild censored materials critical of the regime. But "private-property-rights" Iconodules, claiming themselves to be "freedom-loving," defend the "property-rights" of censors in the "private sectors".

By: Thomas L. Knapp

Thomas L. Knapp — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 01:06:25 +0000

"The secondary regulation is not a net increase, but a net reduction in statism."

Strangely, I had never noticed that before (it's from Carson at http://c4ss.org/content/15318). It's one of those rare instances of Carson being about as completely wrong as it's humanly possible to be.

Secondary interventions are not "net reductions in statism." They are additional doses of statism undertaken for the purpose of keeping the primary interventions stable/sustainable. They are net increases in both intent and effect and at both the front entryway and the rear exit.

By: Iconoclast

Iconoclast — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:57:22 +0000

"When the state confers a special privilege on an occupation, a business firm, or an industry, and then sets regulatory limits on the use of that privilege, the regulation is not a new intrusion of statism into a free market. It is, rather, the state’s limitation and qualification of its own underlying statism. The secondary regulation is not a net increase, but a net reduction in statism.
On the other hand, repeal of the secondary regulation, without an accompanying repeal of the primary privilege, would be a net increase in statism. Since the beneficiaries of privilege are a de facto branch of the state, the elimination of regulatory constraints on their abuse of privilege has the same practical effect as repealing a constitutional restriction on the state’s exercise of its own powers."

Internet providers' monopoly is the shackle, net neutrality is the crutch. Therefore,advocacy for net neutrality is actually a net decrease in statism; otherwise, more statism from the business-government partnerhsip.

By: TeddM

TeddM — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:18:06 +0000

Some people here are conflating Comcast's monopoly in providing cable TV with a monopoly on internet service, which is incorrect. The two have nothing to do with each other, other than that Comcast provides both TV and internet over the same physical infrastructure. Comcast is very much in competition with other internet access providers.

By: nskinsella

nskinsella — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:21:35 +0000

Great comment, Brad. You are right. The corporations are not fully free market nor is the broadband market--but this is because of state intervention in the first place. To lobby the state to regulate an industry that is quasi-monopolized because of the state's actions is asinine. The state is the problem, not the solution. As for the suggestion for Carsonian-style "local" ISPs--size is not the problem. Whatever size would exist on a truly free market is fine. We have no apriori way of knowing that the current telcos are too big or bigger than what we'd see on a free market. I touched on these issues in Net Neutrality Developments and a comment to Pearlstein: Beware the courts on government regulation.

By: bradley

bradley — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:37:45 +0000

c) Net neutrality regulations are put in place. Big ISPs go bust because they can’t afford the costs of not throttling services like BitTorrent. ISPs lobby for federal subsidies. At Congressional hearings, senators warn of the Internet’s impending death. The federal government imposes consumer price caps for Cable and DSL service, then subsidizes major ISPs to cover their revenue losses. Local and ad-hoc ISPs fold, unable to compete with their larger, subsidized cousins. Network congestion increases steadily as investment in new broadband technology collapses.

Opinion-makers everywhere cite the entire incident as yet another instance of “market failure”.

By: Brad Spangler

Brad Spangler — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:10:43 +0000

Lissismore has a valid point that many of these telecom companies are recipients of politically awarded monopoly franchises. At the same time, though, that’s still a false rationale for adding yet another layer of market distorting government regulation — because that will add even more unintended consequences and the process will keep repeating ad infinitum until civilization drowns in red tape.

Net neutrality regulation was actively sought after and lobbied for. The same resources (theoretically) could have been spent on instead agitating for the junking of monopoly franchises across the board — but it wasn’t. I believe that goes to show that consumer protection has never been the principal goal of backers of the effort.

By: Lewis Collard

Lewis Collard — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:53:09 +0000

To the first two commenters, I'm going to go all Carson here and suggest the possibility of very local ISPs. Think: as long as someone can get a OC-* line to his house and there are no regulations on him putting up a small antenna on his house, there is pretty much *nothing*, thanks to wireless networking, stopping him from setting up his own ISP for people very nearby to him. I'll acknowledge that net neutrality will screw the big ISPs, and you're seriously going to need a fucking raft to ride the river I'm crying for the ISPs that feed on government privilege. The opposite becomes true, however, from the moment that the big ISPs start to screw you. Whatever way the net neutrality thing goes, the consumer, and decentralised freedom, will be the winner. Consider these scenarios:

a) Net neutrality regulations are put in place. Big ISPs go bust because they can't afford the costs of not throttling services like BitTorrent (and yes, there are good reasons to filter it), or they pump up the cost of their services. People gravitate towards the very local ISPs.

b) Net neutrality regulations are not put in place. ISPs decide to screw the consumer (and if you're right about these local monopolies in the US, as I suspect you are, this is almost inevitable). People gravitate towards these local ISPs.

I'd prefer b) (I don't like the idea that government exists, let alone that they should interfere with the internet), but either way, decentralism and freedom win.

Fuck yeah, technology!