Net Neutrality and Carrier Incentives To Invest

An anonymous reader writes "In policy debates before Congress and the FCC, the big ISPs and wireless carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Cox, Sprint) argued that net neutrality rules would give them less incentive to upgrade their networks. The reality is just the opposite, says Infoworld's Bill Snyder, citing a game-theoretic work done by two researchers at the U. of Florida's business school. If carriers can charge premium prices for expedited service, they have an incentive not to invest. Hmm, this reminds me of the agriculture business, where prices are sometimes propped up by paying farmers not to grow crops."

Comments

Re:Farmer subsidies need to STOP

[Oswald McWeany]

Ahh-well the government will love then that not only do corn fed cattle have higher fat contents then grass fed cattle- they also require higher levels of antibiotics.

These antibiotics in farming is what leads to super bugs and antibiotic resistance in bacteria... which leads to... ... higher health costs and prescription costs.

Government should double subsidies on maize immediately to help make the loop complete.

Re:Glad to hear it, but a big "duh!!!"

[Bloopie]

Also, I don't believe anti-net neutrality is a partisan issue, R and D are both for it.

If both parties are against net neutrality, how do you explain the Senate vote last week where the Democrats voted against repealing it and the Republicans voted for repealing it? And Obama threatened to veto a repeal? Link

Re:Farmer subsidies need to STOP

[BranMan]

I'll take a shot at it. In essence, subsidies are an insurance policy so that we always have plenty of food. Without subsidies, farming would be subject to the ups and downs of the free market. Consider this - with subsidies, farms can, regardless of how much of what they produce, KNOW what they are going to have for income, more or less. The subsidies make sure the prices they get are STABLE. With that we can make sure we're always producing the right amount - i.e. too much for us here at home, so we sell the excess overseas - regardless of climate or droughts, since we'll always make sure we have excess capacity.

That works out really well. Without that, the market rules. If one year there is a drought, for instance, prices will jump as there will be shortages. The next year, all kinds of new people will try to get 'in' on the high prices and end up with a bumper crop, which will depress prices instead. Maybe to the point of bankrupting farmers, closing farms, etc. The next year after that, not enough of a crop is produced, and we have more shortages. Up and down, up and down. Not something we want happening to our food supply.

I'm probably not explaining it well enough, but that's the general idea - simple economics, lots of players looking for an edge - if we leave prices unsupported, we'll have chaos. And hunger. And if we end up hungry here, what about all the places depending on our exports?