Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Network Neutrality — Without Regulation

Posted by timothy on from the but-that's-unpossible dept.

boyko.at.netqos writes "Timothy B. Lee (no relation to Tim Berners-Lee), a frequent contributor to Ars Technica and Techdirt, has recently written 'The Durable Internet,' a paper published by the libertarian-leaning CATO institute. In it, Lee argues that because a neutral network works better than a non-neutral one, the Internet's open-ended architecture is not likely to vanish, despite the fears of net neutrality proponents, (and despite the wishes of net neutrality opponents.) For that reason, perhaps network neutrality legislation isn't necessary — or even desirable — from an open-networks perspective. In addition to the paper, Network Performance Daily has an interview and podcast with Tim Lee, and Lee addresses counter-arguments with a blog posting for Technology Liberation Front."

9 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. human nature by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as companies are involved with some having more sway than others, you can expect them to abuse their position in the name of greed. It's simple human nature. Say all you want about how companies will police themselves or that the market will sort itself out. However, reality has shown us time and time again that this isn't the case.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:human nature by Progoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I challenge you to show me an unregulated market where the government doesn't have its hands in it in some way. Go ahead...I'm waiting.

      And WTF? libertarians support the PATRIOT act or unilateral action against sovereign nations? you know some funny libertarians, and I'm glad I haven't met them.

    2. Re:human nature by ClassMyAss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I couldn't agree more. I'm tired of all economic libertarians saying the market will rule itself despite many examples showing just the oposite.

      The key to arguing for the pure libertarian point of view is that whenever you're presented with an example of the market failing, you figure out some minor way in which it is regulated, and blame that for the failure rather than the lack of stronger protections.

      For instance, if a monopoly becomes abusive, it's not happening because they are unregulated and haven't been restrained from anti-competitive practices, it's because the tax system has made it impossible for smaller companies to effectively compete with the monopoly. Or maybe it's that the minimum wage has increased the cost of the monopolist's labor to the point where they must charge abusive prices in order to stay in business.

      Or if a financial industry falls all over it's ass by making stupid bets left and right, it's not that the industry went wild taking on too many risks, it's that entitlement programs sent them the...uhh...implicit message that they should...lend money to people that will never pay it back..?...yeah, something like that! Maybe. Oh wait, I meant Sarbanes Oxley, err maybe the Fed's meddling...whatever, the specific reason doesn't matter, just say it forcefully enough and people will lap it up!

      It's a neat trick, actually - any time one element of your preferred extremist approach turns out to fail, you simply claim that it's because the whole thing must be implemented at once, and any deviation from that can bring the whole house of cards tumbling down.

      Unfortunately it's also exactly the same philosophical bullshit that Communists have been arguing since their first failed attempts at Utopia. I'm really getting tired of people failing to understand that balance is necessary in all things, including the level of regulation...I even tend to lean libertarian on a lot of these issues, as I don't think much government meddling is usually a good thing, but the tendency to pretend that there are no situations where it's appropriate seems just as deluded as the idea that the government should control everything. We should be pushing to roll back the right regulations, not abolish them wholesale without considering that some of them may actually be helping us.

    3. Re:human nature by Goaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah yes, the good old libertarian cop-out. If a free market fails, find some tiny little bit of government involvement, and blame that. If a free market succeeds, take credit and ignore any government involvement.

    4. Re:human nature by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I challenge you to show me an unregulated market where the government doesn't have its hands in it in some way"

      I challenge you to show me a large bunch of people where you don't get a form of government within a few years - whether it's a dictatorship or otherwise.

      Similarly given a large market, you will get some form of regulation whether you like it or not.

      What people should worry about is not "lots" vs "little" regulation. What they should worry about is good vs bad regulation. With Laws (like code), quality not quantity matters more.

      If greedy corporations have the most say in the writing of regulation, the Public are unlikely to get good regulation, after all the creation of regulation that benefits the Public is not going to be one of their top priorities.

      If the Public prefer to vote for politicians/legislators who got the most money from greedy corporations, it should be no surprise what is likely to happen...

      --
  2. In Other News... by dcollins · · Score: 5, Informative

    Another paper by the libertarian-leaning CATO institute also said this: Banks, financial lenders, and mortgage providers "work better" if they are responsible and provide only secure financial investments, and are therefore not likely to enter a worldwide financial meltdown. For that reason, financial oversight legislation is neither necessary nor desirable. QED.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    1. Re:In Other News... by readin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another paper by the libertarian-leaning CATO institute also said this: Banks, financial lenders, and mortgage providers "work better" if they are responsible and provide only secure financial investments, and are therefore not likely to enter a worldwide financial meltdown. For that reason, financial oversight legislation is neither necessary nor desirable. QED.

      Our recent meltdown is due to regulations that encouraged bad loans. Our future meltdowns will be due to the assumptions by banks that they don't need to be responsible because the government will step in with billions of dollars to bail them out if anything goes wrong.

      It's silly to blame the current mess on lack of regulation when the banks, financial lenders, and mortgage provides were regulated.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    2. Re:In Other News... by Rycross · · Score: 5, Informative

      No it didn't. It said that the location or race of that the person could no longer be considered. That is, banks could no longer red-line (look it up). They could still deny people based on their credit and income. See the wikipedia article on the CRA. The criticisms mostly suggest that the CRA had nothing to do with the crisis. At best, they could point out innuendo (the CRA made banks *feel* like they had to do sub-prime lending) rather than a direct causal link.

  3. Corporations cannot self-regulate. by Kaenneth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surveying the wreckage of the credit crisis, Alan Greenspan says he made one very big mistake.

    The free-market cheerleader and former maestro of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board conceded yesterday that he wrongly thought banks had an inherent interest in shielding their institutions and their shareholders from risk.

    That assumption turned out to have been dead wrong as financial institutions brought the banking system to the brink of failure in recent months after loading up on exotic mortgages and risky derivative products such as credit default swaps.

    "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," Mr. Greenspan bluntly told a U.S. congressional committee exploring the role of regulators in the financial crisis.

    "Something which looked to be a very solid edifice and, indeed, a critical pillar to market competition and free markets did break down.

    "And I think that ... shocked me. I still do not fully understand why it happened."

    The staunch belief that banks could manage their own tolerance for risk underpinned Mr. Greenspan's aversion to heavy-handed banking regulation during his record 18-year tenure at the helm of the Fed.

    Mr. Greenspan was an early devotee of author Ayn Rand, whose 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged inspired a generation of libertarian thinkers who believe in the right of individuals to live entirely for their own interest.