Reason.com
New at Reason
Adrian Moore is anything but neutral when it comes to new regulations on Internet service providers.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism (5.26)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
Amy Phillips|8.1.05 @ 10:16AM|#
It strikes me also that mandating network neutrality isn't just unneccesary to protect people who want to be able to access any content they please; it's also bad for the group of people who may want their internet use moderated. If parents want to protect their children from pornography or violence, if employers want to prevent their employees from sending personal emails, or even if I want to prevent myself from reading Hit & Run all day instead of whatever it is I'm supposed to be doing instead, we might prefer a content provider who will filter out certain content and put restrictions on internet use. Heck, there are probably people out there who wouldn't mind having all political sites they disagree with edited out so that they don't have to get upset over crazy people they disagree with. Someone will likely come up with the net equivalent of the video stores that have cropped up lately renting copies of movies with all the naughty bits edited out. Choosing such a service isn't necessarily irrational, and it certainly shouldn't be illegal. As usual, one size fits all doesn't really fit everyone.
Warren|8.1.05 @ 10:20AM|#
Look, I�m as devoutly libertarian as anyone, but broadband is just not competitively priced. I live in a north-facing apartment so I have only one option, the sole cable company in town. Broadband costs me about $50 a month, but even if DSL and Satellite were available to me, they aren�t any cheaper. And maybe you have plenty of options in southern California, but once you get a few miles down the road here in Michigan, there is only the exuberantly priced satellite (and dial up can�t achieve 56k on the old lines). I�m not necessarily advocating for open access, but I am suggesting that the market is not functioning in a competitive manner. Can someone explain why Canadians pay less than half of what I do? As far as I can tell, Canadian cable companies receive no government subsides.
|8.1.05 @ 10:32AM|#
In rural areas, broadband is necessarily harder to come and more expesive. It's simple: there are fewer customers to offset the cost of infrastructure upgrades. At the same time, those upgrades tend to be more expensive because of lower population density and greater distances. In KC, cable is providing about 5mb/s for $20 or so a month. In the town outside of KC where I live, I'm paying $40 for 1mb/s. Of course, I do have choices-there's the guy who runs an ISP out of his house. He'll sell high-speed dial-up (an oxymoron, but try explaining that to some rural folks) using a compression algorithm he stole from someone. Or there's satellite, which is ungodly expensive, unreliable, and slow.
What I'm getting at is that it's just the nature of the market. Services that depend on population density to offset their costs simply don't work well in rural areas.
On the plus side, since I'm one of three people in town who know how to use a computer, I've usually got the cable all to myself.
|8.1.05 @ 10:33AM|#
That first sentence should read 'harder to come by'. Advance apologies for any other stupid mistakes.
|8.1.05 @ 10:38AM|#
I hear you, Warren; I live in Holland, MI, and I feel like I'm being raked over the coals every time I send in my fee.
On the other hand, I keep paying it - and as people continue to emigrate from Michigan, what incentive is there to start up a cable or DSL company?
Amy Phillips|8.1.05 @ 11:51AM|#
Warren,
Actually, Canada apparently has several large programs designed to increase broadband capacity and bring broadband services to rural and remote communities. They also subsidize the acquisition of satellite capacity and the building of new broadband infrastructure. So yes, subsidies may explain why your neighbors to the north pay less for high speed internet.
Windypundit|8.1.05 @ 11:57AM|#
Forcing cable companies to accept competing content almost makes sense here in Chicago where we don't have competitive pressure on the cable company because there's only one. Of course, it would make more sense to lift the government-imposed monopoly and allow other companies to install cable systems.
Warren|8.1.05 @ 12:11PM|#
Amy,
Thanks for the link. However, I disagree with your characterization of those programs as "large". Indeed since the price tag on even the most costly of them is measured in millions of (shabby Canadian) dollars, I think they can be fairly classified as �small�. However, it occurs to me that Canada is constantly implementing a stream of �small� subsidies that over time add up to a very large distortion of the market.
|8.1.05 @ 1:30PM|#
Open access regulations created a huge disincentive for companies to invest in more broadband infrastructure and slowed down the expansion of the technology.
This is, perhaps, the most patently stupid statement in an otherwise lopsidedly "regulation is evil" piece.
It's poor reporting with lot's of annecdotes colored with anti-regulation hysteria. But Dr. Moore cites not one source or quotes one individual who has decided not to invest in broadband over this issue. Why? Because their isn't one.
Open access exerts very little (if any) influence over the rise of broadband technology.
Businesses invest in broadband because there is an inherent incentive to invest in faster platforms. Faster means more and different types of media - video, audio, large files, etc. Faster also means keeping up with competition.
There are a thousand good reasons to invest in broadband and every single one of them way eclipses the relatively small downside of open access. The market proves that.
In fact, Dr. Moore disproves his own statement by trumpeting about how proliferate broadband technology is.
When you have a choice of several service providers, why would you choose�or stay with�one that is deliberately hindering your Internet use?
Duh...anyone here watch Fox News? I personally don't because they're crap. But millions of people do.
Can you imagine a Fox News Broadband network that prohibits access to any lefty-liberal site - even for only info-gathering purposes?
Under this scenario, I could. Would that lack of access prevent folks from signing up? Probably not...especially if the price was right.
Now don't mistake me. I'm not "all for regulation" or anything like that. And the sentiment behind this article has some merit and is worth considering.
Unfortunately, ideology and hysteria were more apparent that proof or a solid point.
IO ERROR|8.1.05 @ 1:50PM|#
Also consider that the fixed wireless technology available to Adrian Moore works quite well in rural areas, but doesn't work nearly so well in urban areas, even if someone does manage to get it deployed.
|8.1.05 @ 2:09PM|#
It seems to me, in light of this article, that the Libertarian influences are going to have to wake up and accept that regulation is a fact of life.
Not ALL regulation is inherently bad (most is certainly but ALL is a logical fallacy).
This being the case, from an ideological point, shouldn't the "free minds, free markets" crowd be at least philosophically consistant?
If a regulation is going to exist (and it will, trust me) I'd rather that regulation be based on openness rather than not.
For a publication that regularly ridicules North Korea's and China's adventures in limited access, I find it surprising that it doesn't have the nuts to stay with the message when it affects us here in the states.
Mad Anthony|8.2.05 @ 1:32PM|#
I tend not to think that the Brand X decision was a clear-cut a defense of property rights for cable companies against big goverment as many on the right see it. Most cable companies were only able to build those lines and make money off them because they signed exclusive deals with the cities/towns where they are in that prevented them from having any competitors - in some cases by legally prohibiting anyone other than the local cable franchise from selling cable TV.
In many places, cable companies are monopolies - and not the good kind of monopoly where you get market share by selling a superior product (like Microsoft), but the bad kind of monopoly where you get market share because the government forbids competiton with you (like the post office).