No Neutrality Regulation in 2009

by on January 2, 2009 · 12 comments

I’m in the mood for making bold predictions, so I predict (with fingers crossed) that we won’t see neutrality regulation passed in 2009.  I want to say right away that this is more of a hope than a assessment of the regulation’s political chances, but it’s a hope worth sharing.

Over at OpenMarket.org, the blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I have spelled out my reasons for thinking that neutrality regulation won’t pass and why I think market-enforced neutrality would be a much more robust system for keeping the Net thriving.

  • http://aheram.com Jayel Aheram

    I am not entirely convinced that “market-enforced neutrality” will manifest in a market that is not entirely free or competitive. Of course, I am also not convinced that government-mandated neutrality will be beneficial either.

    The only way for a “market-enforced neutrality” to manifest is for the government to remain neutral when consumers attempt to circumvent traffic-shaping. But that will not be the case. Internet service providers will call upon the state apparatus to enforce its traffic-shaping and censorship of data against consumers.

  • http://www.lipoaspiracao.org/lipoescultura/ Lipoescultura

    Market-enforced neutrality is really the future of the web. there´s no other way.

  • quanticle

    As Jayel stated, the market for the majority of broadband users is not free. It is, at best a duopoly between the phone company's DSL and the cable company's cable internet. In my case, I don't even have that. I live too far from the phone company's CO, so I have to make do with a monopoly.

    So, how exactly am I going to get “market enforced neutrality”, when there isn't a market?

  • Brett Glass

    In that case, the right thing to legislate is incentives to competition, not “network neutrality” (a term which should probably be banned from serious discussions because it has no definition).

  • Brett Glass

    In that case, the right thing to legislate is incentives to competition, not “network neutrality” (a term which should probably be banned from serious discussions because it has no definition).

  • Brett Glass

    In that case, the right thing to legislate is incentives to competition, not “network neutrality” (a term which should probably be banned from serious discussions because it has no definition).

  • Pingback: cheapest home.aol.com nisteano online.html phentermine

  • Pingback: find 1300 numbers directory au

  • Pingback: Cigarette electronique

  • Pingback: klasemen premier league

  • Pingback: twitter.com/NHCPS

  • Pingback: find out

Previous post:

Next post: