How Free-Market Internet Will Protect the Little Guy

An earlier post gave a rights-based reason to oppose “Net Neutrality”:

Internet service providers own their fiber optic cables, switches, and so on, the physical infrastructure of the Internet. It’s their property. Their rights to their own should be respected.

Not everyone is persuaded by rights-based reasoning. Dan H., for example, discussing the post on Facebook, frets that property rights and free exchange for Internet service providers would be disastrous:

As someone who is trying to use the Internet to spread my work and gain an audience, ending net neutrality would be one of the worst things that could ever happen to my plan for the future. Giving priority to those sites that have deeper wallets will kill the freedom and innovation found on the Internet.

Dan is mistaken. Freedom for service providers to offer different speeds and services at different prices is not only right in principle, it will also foster innovation, expand service, and drive prices down as competitors strive to satisfy customer wants, guided by free-market prices and the prospect of profit. Joshua Steimle characterizes the process nicely in “Am I the Only Techie Against Net Neutrality?” (HT Aeon Skoble) Here are three relevant slices:

If the telecoms are forced to compete in a truly free market, Comcast and Time Warner won’t exist 10 years from now. They’ll be replaced by options that give us better service at a lower price. Some of these new options may depend on being able to take advantage of the very freedom to charge more for certain types of Internet traffic that Net Neutrality seeks to eliminate. If we want to break up the large telecoms through increased competition we need to eliminate regulations that act as barriers to entry in the space, rather than create more of them.

… Internet bandwidth is, at least currently, a finite resource and has to be allocated somehow. We can let politicians decide, or we can let you and me decide by leaving it up to the free market. If we choose politicians, we will see the Internet become another mismanaged public monopoly, subject to political whims and increased scrutiny from our friends at the NSA. If we leave it up to the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want at a lower price. It may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than the alternative.

… The worse services provided by the large telecoms are, the more incentive there will be for entrepreneurs to create new technologies. Five years from now a new satellite technology may emerge that makes fiber obsolete, and we’ll all be getting wireless terabit downloads from space directly to our smartphones, anywhere in the world, for $5/month. Unrealistic? Just think what someone would have said in 1994 if you had tried to explain to them everything you can do today on an iPhone, and at what price.

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

All We Need to Know About “Net Neutrality”

In thinking about the controversy over “net neutrality” that President Obama stirred up on Monday, we should keep in mind that private ownership and freedom of exchange are the foundations of a free society. Internet service providers own their fiber optic cables, switches, and so on, the physical infrastructure of the Internet. It’s their property.Continue Reading

Can the Oil-Export Ban

Here is a letter to The Wall Street Journal: To the editor: Why do we have a taint of Soviet-style central planning in the American oil industry? Americans’ high standard of living, not to mention our status as a free society, results from private ownership rights and freedom of exchange. So why should American oilContinue Reading

Two Minutes, $9.99

Yesterday afternoon I got Facebook notification of a new post by my friend Clark Neily. On clicking “View Post,” I found Clark’s enthusiastic recommendation of The Martian. The embedded link took me to Amazon’s page for the Kindle edition of the book, where I clicked “Buy now with 1-Click.” Immediately I received notification that AmazonContinue Reading

Undermining Terrorism With Property Rights

If young men in the Arab world had meaningful prospects of economic advancement, they would not be drawn into jihadi groups. Hence the key to successfully opposing ISIS and other extremist groups is to set up the institutions necessary for free-market capitalism: private ownership and freedom of exchange. So argues the great Peruvian Hernando deContinue Reading

Regulation of Lodging by the Market Process

Does the lodging industry—hotels and such—need government regulation? I don’t think so, and I’m more convinced than before after listening yesterday to a fascinating EconTalk conversation (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/09/nathan_blecharc.html) between host Russ Roberts and Nathan Blecharczyck, a founder of the lodging service AirBnB. Blecharczyck explains that every AirBnB customer rates every property in which she stays, forContinue Reading

The Need to Regulate Destructive Regulation

Here is a letter to the Wall Street Journal today: To the Editor: The legal hassling you describe of ride-sharing services such as Sidecar, Uber, and Lyft (“Ride-Sharing Services Face Legal Threat From San Francisco, Los Angeles,” Sep. 25, 2014) is farcical. What should be shut down is not the ride services, but the regulations and taxicabContinue Reading

Liquid Assets

The Freeman has published a piece in which I contrast the disorderly allocation of water with the orderly allocation of gasoline. A slice: Now what about water in drought-stricken states? Water prices are set by “authorities” at arbitrary prices that don’t change to reflect water availability. The authorities allocate water to various uses. But howContinue Reading

Unregulated By Government Doesn’t Mean Unregulated

Many people believe that markets must be either regulated by government or unregulated. They believe that if we don’t want markets out of control, lacking in regularity, predictability, and quality control, we have to let governments regulate them. But that’s false, because markets forces regulate markets. The actions of every market participant constrain and influence theContinue Reading

No Public Service Here

Here is a letter to the Baltimore Sun: To the editor: By its decision to regulate Uber as a “common carrier” (“Uber is ‘common carrier,’ commission rules,” Thursday, August 7), the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) stands athwart the tide of technology and history. Allowed to stand, the ruling would harm Marylanders. Why restrict Uber’s freedomContinue Reading

availableonamazon
Contact Dr. Baetjer

Enter your email address: