In class we talked about net neutrality, Obama's speech regarding it, and his views on how internet should be reconsidered as utility and equal and fair for all. This article describes the aftermath of Obama's speech regarding broadband regulation, particularly in showing and describing falling share prices as a result. This article does not seem to be in favor of net neutrality.
Following everything on the topic from yesterday, does this recent article showing one view of how Obama's speech was taken change your opinion at all? Is net neutrality bad for investors and would it set the stage for increased regulation that could make the Comcast and Time Warner merger less lucrative? Or, is this just one side of the coin and you still believe net neutrality is the right, good, and fair thing? If anything, feel free to comment on your own opinion of the topic since it is an interesting one.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/investors-in-cable-deal-fret-over-talk-of-broadband-regulation-1415662986?KEYWORDS=regulation
I think that we reached a pretty good conclusion in class. It seemed that we all reached a consensus that there is no real need to regulate the internet industry as the president suggested. Although (almost) everybody uses the internet in our society, it has always been a pay-for-service good. As this article points out, too, investors are completely unsure of what to expect from both Comcast and Time Werner following Obama's speech. They are concerned that, if the FCC does really decide to block the Comcast-Time Werner merger or even create more state-supported internet, both companies will suffer. I think that these concerns are valid. It's not like certain groups are excluded from the internet currently, (although the poor are less likely to afford it.) Our survival does not depend on the internet. I do agree with everyone having access to the internet, but it shouldn't be placed on the same level as, say, water or electricity. Public libraries or schools, for example, offer free access to the internet. The one argument I do find interesting is the compatibility question. If there were to come a time where certain computer/tablet/smartphone companies only work with certain internet providers (like Apple's initial contract with AT&T for the iPhone,) then I could see the government stepping in. But, just as the Comcast-Time Werner issue is showing us, the question is not necessarily of equity, but of limiting monopoly power.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to remember that we can be in support of net neutrality without being in favor of Net Neutrality. I am not in support of the legislation that the government is trying to pass. I don't want the government to be in control of internet regulations because of how slow the government works. There would be so many political battles that would hinder improvements in the internet. The best thing about the internet is the absolute freedom. If the government is in control of regulating it, we won't experience the same levels of competition that occur in a natural economy.
ReplyDeleteI am in favor of net neutrality, keeping the internet open and free. I oppose Net Neutrality, giving the government control over all aspects of my internet service while keeping intact the broken, regional, government-supported ISP monopolies that got us here in the first place. Net Neutrality won't solve anything.
I want a system that actually supports net neutrality, not a system that supports the Federal Budget. Why would I accept a monopolistic state (one that favors the monopolies and not the consumers) instead of favoring competition?