Comments on: The 5-Part Case against Net Neutrality Regulation (Debate vs. Ben Scott of Free Press)

By: Innovation at the Core Drives Innovation at the Edge (& Vice Versa)

Innovation at the Core Drives Innovation at the Edge (& Vice Versa) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:32:07 +0000

[...] networks and the bandwidth demands of new applications. But as Adam Thierer noted in making the The 5-Part Case against Net Neutrality Regulation in his debate last week with Ben Scott of the radical “media reform” advocacy group “Free [...]

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:11:21 +0000

Martin, I liked that speech.... Thought it was particularly sensible and gave one that made similar points at the same conference a few years later. Alas, the group was ideologically fixed on "network neutrality" regulation and the questionable arguments behind it. I'd welcome your thoughts on how a small ISP can survive if the regs are adopted (see http://www.brettglass.com/nprmcomment.pdf).

By: Kenneth Younger III

Kenneth Younger III — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:12:13 +0000

Was the debate recorded? If so, will it be appearing somewhere online?

By: Martin Geddes

Martin Geddes — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:43:26 +0000

Great minds thinking alike: http://www.telepocalypse.net/archives/000905.html

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:11:21 +0000

By: Kenneth Younger III

Kenneth Younger III — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:12:13 +0000

Was the debate recorded? If so, will it be appearing somewhere online?

By: Martin Geddes

Martin Geddes — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:43:26 +0000

Great minds thinking alike: http://www.telepocalypse.net/archives/000905.html

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:14:19 +0000

The middle mile is not a “natural monopoly.” But an unassailable “unnatural monopoly” has been created there by government. Government must do one of two things to fix the market: (a) regulate rates or (b) heavily subsidize competition in the same way that it subsidized the original infrastructure. There is no other way to undo the damage.

By: q-jimmy

q-jimmy — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:03:45 +0000

The idea should be to increase competition in the middle mile, and not to regulate prices. I dont think middle mile is a natural monopoly.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:12:26 +0000

Oh, and by the way: It's worth noting that it was government intervention that originally broke the market. The incumbents' long distance lines were built with monopoly rents (generated by a government-guaranteed monopoly) and USF funding (a tax whose proceeds were forwarded to the incumbents). It is financially infeasible to duplicate the infrastructure without similar subsidies --- which no new entrant can get. The government broke the market and must intervene to fix it.

It's also worth noting that those who are justifiably complaining about special access price gouging do not want anything for free. They merely want to rent infrastructure at a price that does not constitute anticompetitive price gouging -- which is more than fair, since the incumbents got that infrastructure for free thanks to government largesse. For more, see my article at http://ow.ly/1bigv

By: Cheeky

Cheeky — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:22:20 +0000

Adam, you somehow manage to achieve a really close shave without a nick to speak of. Blade or Electric?

By: q-jimmy

q-jimmy — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:47:39 +0000

The special access docket is one group of companies looking to benefit themselves arguing with another group of companies who don't want their pockets picked.

"Barriers to entry" are everywhere, even in the last mile. How can I come in to compete with FIOS? Verizon can always just lower its prices and keep customers away. There's nothing special about special access.

The free market should be allowed to run its course. A plan to reduce middle mile investment by price regulation will stop it in its tracks.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:23:04 +0000

Unfortunately, “q-jimmy”, those monopoly rents are preserved by high barriers to entry and anticompetitive tactics. Read the filings in FCC docket 05-25 for more. The market for middle mile access and special access is badly broken. The same can't be said for the last mile, where there are few barriers to entry other than “special access” price gouging. Fix the middle mile and there's no need to regulate the last mile.

By the way, does the “Q” in your moniker above happen to stand for “Qwest?” Just wondering.

By: q-jimmy

q-jimmy — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:54:20 +0000

And what's to stop the “intervention” at one place? In a lot of cities there is only one broadband provider. Should the prices these companies charge be regulated.

By: q-jimmy

q-jimmy — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:51:53 +0000

If they're charging monopoly rents, that just creates the incentive for new competitors in the market, or new technologies that bypass the incumbents.

People who ask for “special access” reform want nothing more than to line their own pockets at the expense of the customers and shareholders of the companies whose pipes they want forced access to.

By: The 5-Part Case against Net Neutrality Regulation « Internet Freedom Coalition

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:32:39 +0000

[...] by Adam Thierer, Progress and freedom Foundation. From the Technology Liberation Front [...]

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:39:02 +0000

No, q-jimmy; we have market failure in special access as evidenced by the fact that incumbents are extracting monopoly rents and engaging in anticompetitive practices. Government should not act when markets work, which is why it should not imposed “network neutrality” regulation. But when they fail (and government actually helped to break this one), there is good reason to intervene. We need healthy markets.

By: Larry Downes

Larry Downes — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:33:15 +0000

That's a great outline and a terrific way to organize the argument. I would add to the engineering section the likely problems with enforcement. How does the FCC investigate a complaint of “non-neutral” behavior? There's no way to avoid, at least on a sampling basis, deep packet inspection. No one's really talking about implementation.

By: q-jimmy

q-jimmy — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:07:02 +0000

There's no “market failure” in special access–just second tier operators like Sprint trying to take other people's property for free.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:41:57 +0000

Very well argued, Adam. There's justification for correcting the market failure in special access (which the FCC does have authority to do), but none for network neutrality regulation.