Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Raping Nanking for lulz

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - SmartLibertarian

1
CHAPOTRAPHOUSE: a trio of Western Communist making 100000$ whining about capitalism though patreon

BERNIE SANDERS: a "socialist" who recently bough a mansion for 600k$
2
https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/7jzgnn/two_separate_studies_show_that_the_vast_majority/drainq5/

Hi, Nice to meet you. The names David Icardo, Jr. I'm a professional Economist and like many (if not most) of my colleagues, I oppose Net Neutrality. I am one of the real people who submitted a comment to the FCC opposing Net Neutrality.

At least five current or former Chief Economists of the FCC have publically opposed the Open Internet Order. I don't know any who have supported it. That includes:

Michael Katz (Served under Clinton, author of half of the Economics papers cited in the 2015 Open Internet Order).
Gerald Faulhaber (Served under Bush)
Michelle Connolly (Served twice, once under Bush and once overlapping under Bush and Obama)
Tim Brennan (served under Obama, including when the OIO was passed)
Jerry Ellig (The current FCC Chief Economist).
In a survey of leading Economists, only 11% supported Net Neutrality. 44% were opposed to it, and 36% were uncertain. This isn't a partisan thing either, Economists at leading Universities are much more likely to be Democrats than Republicans, by over a 4:1 ratio.

I don't mean to say that all Economists oppose Net Neutrality or the OIO specifically. There are certainly some who support it. Nicholas Economides would probably be the most well known. Still, I think it is fair to say that most oppose it, particularrly those working on related topics.

Neither the world nor the internet as we know it is going to end with the repeal of Net Neutrality. It wouldn't have had it reamined in place either. But I think there are good reasons to think things are likely to be at least somewhat better without it they with it. Markets generally work well. Proactive regulation is likely to stifle innovation. There is at least the potential for there to be benefits from prioritizing some types of data over others (telemedicine, video conferencing, etc.). The peer-reviewed literature indicates that NN regulations will likely lead to a worsening in the digital divide.. There are legitimate concerns about ISP behavior, but it's probably best handled through anti-trust not Title II restrictions - reclassifying ISPs as common carriers took that away from the FTC who does it well and put it in the hands of the FCC whose ability to do so is uncertain.

ISPs will also be constrained by their desire to maximize profits. "Workable Competition" is the operative concept here. Contestable markets matter. DSL matters. Mobile ISPs matter. They aren't perfect substitutes, but you don't need textbook perfect competition for competitive pressures to constrain firm behavior. The real world is full of imperfect competition. Becker et al. (2010) showed that: "there is significant and growing competition among broadband access providers and that few significant competitive problems have been observed." They also conclude that "antitrust enforcement and/or more limited regulatory mechanisms provide a better framework for addressing competitive concerns raised by proponents of net neutrality."

Say what you want about Chairman Pai, but he has actually listened to Economists and Chairman Wheeler did not..


http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii
3
Politics and Current Events / Flee Floated Urban-Youth
Where is He?