
Net Neutrality II: Majority of economists are against Net neutrality - ZeljkoS
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii
======
monocasa
Majority of those surveyed who are connected to the Chicago School. Literally
the classically liberal school of thought of Friedman. So, we'd probably have
to check if they're OK if they said anything else.

Also, I have issues with the whole premise of the question, as net neutrality
isn't really about "for the right to send that traffic using faster or higher
quality service". There's no magic go faster lane that they want to turn on,
but can't because of regulations. It's about not allowing the ISPs to slow
down other traffic.

~~~
throwaway37585
> Majority of those surveyed who are connected to the Chicago School.

How so? The majority of those surveyed are not from Chicago. According to the
About section:

> ...our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen
> interest in public policy from the main areas of economics, to be
> geographically diverse, and to include older and younger scholars. As with
> the IGM’s US panel, the experts are all outstanding researchers in their
> fields. The panel includes recipients of top national and international
> prizes in economics, fellows of the Econometric society and the European
> Economic Association, members of distinguished national and international
> policymaking bodies in Europe, recipients of significant grants for economic
> research, highly accomplished affiliates and program directors of the Centre
> for Economic Policy Research and the National Bureau of Economic Research,
> and past and current editors of leading academic journals in the profession.

> It's about not allowing the ISPs to slow down other traffic.

What you think a policy “is about” and its actual consequences are very
different things.

~~~
monocasa
> How so? From the About section:

Chicago school is a broad term for an economics ideology, like "Austrian".
Those surveyed are part of that ideology.

> What you think a policy “is about” and its actual consequences are two very
> different things.

So tell me then, how does this magical go faster lane work from a technical
perspective, and how is net neutrality not letting them turn it on? Please be
specific.

~~~
throwaway37585
> Chicago school is a broad term for an economics ideology, like "Austrian".

I know.

> Those surveyed are part of that ideology.

I’ll repeat my question: How so?

> So tell me then, how does this magical go faster lane work from a technical
> perspective, and how is net neutrality not letting them turn it on? Please
> be specific.

I don’t know what “magical” lane you’re referring to, since I don’t believe in
magic. Are you trying to score rhetorical points by using such language? Does
it make you feel better to attack strawmen?

~~~
monocasa
> How so?

It's literally the point of the organization that did the survey; these
economists are members of this organization.

> I don’t know what “magical” lane you’re referring to, since I don’t believe
> in magic. Are you trying to score rhetorical points by using such language?
> Does it make you feel better to attack strawmen?

You're the one being intentionally vague with "what you think a policy 'is
about' and its actual consequences are very different things." I'm trying to
get you to be specific concerning the technical details of your argument, but
you seem to be fighting that pretty hard.

~~~
throwaway37585
> It's literally the point of the organization that did the survey

What is “the point” of the organization that did the survey?

> these economists are members of this organization.

In the sense that they are surveyed by this organization? Do you mean that
anyone who is surveyed by organization X belongs to X?

> You’re the one being intentionally vague with "what you think a policy 'is
> about' and its actual consequences are very different things."

I wasn’t being vague, much less intentionally. I was merely pointing out that
what you (or I) think a policy “is about” is very different from its real-
world consequences.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences)

> I'm trying to get you to be specific concerning the technical details of
> your argument

What “argument” of mine are you referring to? And why do you hold me to such
high standards of “technical details”, which you don’t seem to apply to
yourself? That’s just plain hypocrisy.

> but you seem to be fighting that pretty hard.

I honestly have no idea where you’re trying to go with this.

------
jccc
The linked page does not anywhere say what the editorializing HN headline
does, that a majority of economists are “against Net neutrality.”

The question asked was:

“Considering both distributional effects and changes in efficiency, it is a
good idea to let companies that send video or other content to consumers pay
more to Internet service providers for the right to send that traffic using
faster or higher quality service.”

------
fruzz
I don't understand. Don't we already pay according to the bandwidth we use on
the server side, and don't clients already pay according to the bandwidth they
use, everyone paying more if we use more? And don't backbones already get paid
according to usage? What am I missing here? It seems like paying twice for the
same product?

~~~
xenadu02
That's correct.

ISPs are simply rent-extracting. The majority of the US (even in urban areas)
has little or no broadband competition so there is no penalty on ISPs for
double-dipping. They're hugely profitable and transit costs continue their
slide toward zero. The big players are mostly refusing to expand fiber
deployments.

It has nothing to do with investments in their network, the cost of providing
service, or anything else. They can increase profits by squeezing the likes of
Google, Apple, Netflix, etc. So they will.

------
nabla9
This question is framed in a way that if economist answers the exact question,
it's likely agree or uncertain.

Net neutrality as a whole is still a good idea.

Consider this question:

Q: Should the end users be able to buy better bandwidth or quality of service,
so that they can get faster streaming or other services?

Absolutely. If you order Netflix and are not satisfied with speed, you should
be able to pay for faster network connection that works with every service. If
you allow big corporations to pay bulk prices for delivery that is already
paid by the customer, it's double pricing and restricts the ability of smaller
companies to compete.

------
glitcher
This is a grossly oversimplified view of this issue. Next up: survey of
economists show that our civil rights are hurting the economy!

~~~
throwaway37585
What do you think is “grossly oversimplified”?

------
zwieback
It's interesting to see the comments of the disagreeing economists, which can
be summarized as "paying for a fast lane would be okay if the broadband market
was competitive."

So the problem isn't neutrality so much, it's the distribution layer itself.

------
asperous
The comments from the economists are much more insightful then the headline:

Thoughts in favor:

* Possible better efficiency (better allocation of resource by bringing externalities to market)

* Net Neutrality already a myth due to CDNs, etc

Thoughts against:

* Price discrimination / vertical price squeeze

* No competition / Market power of the cable and phone companies real issue

------
cabaalis
It seems many of the responses with comments base their arguments off of
serving high-bandwidth users.

The question, IMO regarding NN is: "Is all bandwidth equal, and therefore
pricing based purely upon metering usage, or is some bandwidth more/less
valuable than others?"

In principle, I think all bandwidth is equal. But if you've got 2 or 3
companies using 80% of bandwidth (made up a number for sake of argument) then
it damages the other 20% to charge equal pricing bit-for-bit because ISPs have
to increase capacity solely to serve the larger groups. So I think the answer
is cloudy.

~~~
throwaway37585
> In principle, I think all bandwidth is equal.

Why?

~~~
cabaalis
Because I think of an ISP as a carrier, and don't believe it's their business
to inspect traffic between me and their client for the purpose of facilitating
transmission.

------
goombastic
Which is why they didn't invent the internet.

------
decebalus1
Ok, let's see how insightful some of the 'agree' comments are:

David Autor, MIT:

> Net neutrality is a fiction. Hire Akamai (et al.) to mirror your servers
> worldwide to speed content to your users.

What the fuck are you talking about? And Akamai will pump that content onto
some magic rainbows to get to your users. I wouldn't put my name/univeristy
next to that comment.

_ Joseph Altonji, Yale

> High bandwidth traffic imposes externalities on other users.

Fair, but I'd say this is an incentive for ISPs to step up their game. This is
a very old argument.

_ Darrell Duffie, Stanford (Strongly agree)

> If all qualities sell at the same price, markets cannot allocate quality
> efficiently. Works for soap, wine, and haircuts; why not Internet?

First of all, soap, wine and haircuts are not a medium of sharing information.
And all qualities are not sold at the same price. I pay differently for
different speeds and bandwidth. Clearly this guy has no idea what he's talking
about.

_ Richard Schmalensee, MIT

> It is not generally good policy to restrict firms' product offerings, but
> there seem to be other considerations.

I like pizza and it's not necessarily a good idea to eat it every day, but
there seem to be other considerations.

_ Richard Thaler, Chicago

> Seems like those who cause congestion should pay more. I know some worry
> that ISPs will play favorites, but that should be preventable.

Yeah, it should be preventable. Through net neutrality rules.

Honestly, what the fuck is this? Also, who cares about their opinion? Not a
fan of Taleb but I tend to side with him on his opinion about economists.

Next up, let's ask accountants what they think about Net neutrality.

~~~
throwaway37585
> What the fuck are you talking about?

The point is that net neutrality doesn’t even exist presently.

> Fair, but I'd say this is an incentive for ISPs to step up their game.

What do you mean?

> This is a very old argument.

Yours or his?

> First of all, soap, wine and haircuts are not a medium of sharing
> information.

How is this relevant?

> And all qualities are not sold at the same price.

I think that’s the point.

~~~
monocasa
> The point is that net neutrality doesn’t even exist presently.

Despite the right wing talking points, we've had net neutrality for the whole
existence of the public, consumer level internet. First due to the fact the
physical infrastructure of the 90s were owned by the telephone companies who
were common carriers. Then by the FCC's attempt at light touch on broadband
until Verizon sued them to get a court order that the FCC could only enforce
it by declaring them to be full common carriers.

------
zzleeper
At least the one I respect more (Samuelson) has a decent quote:

Disagree. Reason: 'This would be a great idea if the market for service
provision was competitive, but is less obvious with our current market.'

On the other hand, it's sad that smart people that should know better (Chetty,
Altonji) answered like that.

One interesting observation is the IO/Finance divide.

IO experts (Liran Einav) are in favor of NN, while Finance folks (Darrell
Duffie) are against. Probably because the latter almost always think about
efficiency, while if you work in IO you have to be aware of the market
structure (and natural monopolies, etc)

------
chimeracoder
The phrasing of this question is absurd. The most reasonable interpretation is
"should ISPs be allowed to charge more for higher speeds", which is already
the case, and has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Honestly, it's actually phrased in a way that applies to CDNs as well, which
again aren't controversial or really related to net neutrality.

Net neutrality doesn't mean ISPs can't change more for better service; it just
means they can't differentiate their service based on the _type_ or _source_
of the data that they transmit.

~~~
avisser
> The phrasing of this question is absurd.

Agreed. The flip side question should also be asked - "Should ISPs be allowed
to favor internet properties that subsidize user's traffic?"

I'm not convinced the question they did ask gets at large internet properties
using money to disadvantage smaller internet properties.

The anti-competitive aspect w/rt web businesses is, to me, the prime concern.
Innovation at ISPs is garbage and will continue to be garbage.

------
stillbourne
Economists aren't engineers, I don't give two fucks what they think or want. I
care about the dominate opinion among those who are involved in keeping the
internet running and afloat.

------
Glyptodon
The way the question is phrased seems likely to lead to misinterpretation to
me.

------
api
I ascribe this to a lack of understanding of how Internet protocols work and
how the Internet works in general. Non-technical people tend to see the
Internet as its services -- Facebook, Netflix, etc. -- and don't understand
that protocol and traffic selectivity will have a massively chilling effect on
the ability to innovate beyond those services.

~~~
zwieback
You could turn that argument around and say "we had neutrality and got
corporate giants like FB, Google and Netflix" so let's try something else now.
If the internet providers could make more money by making Netflix pay that
money could be invested to do other stuff.

Not sure I believe that line of argumentation either, though.

~~~
api
Part of the problem in my mind is that most high speed Internet in the USA is
provided by companies that have a vested interest in sabotaging the Internet
and thus have a conflict of interest. They'd love to see something like the
old TV cable model where customers have a small set of choices that must pay
to play.

~~~
pitaj
And the answer to that, and a true solution to net neutrality, is competition.
We need to get rid of the regulations and agreements that hurt small ISPs at
the local level.

~~~
api
ISPs are a natural monopoly unless you want this in your neighborhood:

[https://news.lovepattayathailand.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017...](https://news.lovepattayathailand.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/maxresdefault-8-1.jpg)

I also must point out that fighting a patchwork of local regulations is more
expensive than building out the actual infrastructure. It's a slog through
political and bureaucratic molasses.

------
jellicle
a) the headline is bullshit. This is a small panel of economists selected from
a right-wing economics association.

b) It's clear from the responses that none of the individuals surveyed (in
2014) had any understanding of the issues involved. Most of them clearly think
that net neutrality is about dealing with congestion/excessive use, and
obviously think that ISPs should have some way of dealing with that. The
question is worded in the most deceptive way possible to encourage that
misunderstanding.

For example, look at the response of Thaler. He says he agrees (meaning he is
"against" net neutrality for this question) and then explains his answer:
"Seems like those who cause congestion should pay more. I know some worry that
ISPs will play favorites, but that should be preventable." He's clearly for
net neutrality but is an "against" vote for this question because he doesn't
understand what the issues are (or didn't in 2014).

Another way of looking at it is that the question as stated, despite being
titled "Net Neutrality", has nothing to do with net neutrality.

~~~
throwaway37585
> This is a small panel of economists selected from a right-wing economics
> association.

Why do you claim the interviewed economists are “right-wing”?

> The question is worded in the most deceptive way possible to encourage that
> misunderstanding.

What is deceptive about the question?

> He's clearly for net neutrality

Where did you get this from?

> the question as stated... has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Letting companies pay more to send content faster to their users has _nothing_
to do with net neutrality, in your view?

