Net Neutrality II: Majority of economists are against Net neutrality

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.

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.”

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Which is why they didn't invent the internet.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.