I'm a minarchist. I think the government should ensure people's minimum expectations are met (safe potable water, low violence, 20MBPS internet, etc.) but that's it. So I am not against "internet fast lanes" beyond the basics where both sides have to pay for them.
That said, I think it's just good policy to have the same for startups. A minimum level of protection (bankruptcy protection, as well as a level playing field) for new entrants. I think that on the level of Netflix, they should indeed pay for special agreements. After all -- come on -- Netflix does special peering agreements with Tier 1 ISPs and their traffic accounts for 34% of all traffic to consumers. So basically, I think the general principle is:
REDISTRIBUTE THE ECONOMICS TO ENSURE THE MINIMUM LEVEL THAT MAINTAINS INNOVATION, FREEDOM, BASIC EXPECTATIONS, BUT BEYOND THAT, LET THE MARKET BE FREE (BARRING REGULATIONS TO MINIMIZE AGAINST NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES).
PS: If you downvote, I'd love for you to actually reply with a reasoned comment.
There is no market. Two sellers and millions of buyers is not a functional market. You can't set a monopoly free and hope it becomes a thriving ecosystem of buyers and sellers. The free market libertarian ideology has been brilliantly pushed by crony capitalists and most people can't discern the difference.
Given the current situation, the simple solution for peering is to force providers to connect at cost (which is thousands of dollars... not millions like what netflix paid).
True, monopoly players distort markets as much as governments (which are in fact also monopolies in a certain real sense).
I think that, in general, having the government guarantee something and then regulate it should be done only for the "minimum layer", it should have a limit. Above that, there should be a free market where only negative externalities are regulated.
> I think that on the level of Netflix, they should indeed pay for special agreements.
I think this is a bad idea.
Firstly: This sets a hard upper limit on how much a startup can scale until the ISPs start to get to play favorites. Success thus becomes less about market fit and innovation and more about politics and back-room deals.
Secondly: Why should fairness and a level playing field be guaranteed only at small scale? Why should gatekeepers and oligopolies be given more power at scale?
There should be a limit on how much something can scale before they have to pay for resources. Let's analyze that issue without resorting to an easy-to-defeat straw man ... basically, we can think of FREE things (free food on a cruise, etc.) as an egalitarian layer which delivers goods and services only up to a certain point -- usually this point is a reasonable one that would satisfy an average consumer. For example, if a person started eating all the food, stuffing it in their luggage, throwing it overboard, etc. then at some point the cruise operators would approach the person and either ban them from consuming any more resources ("by force") or give them the option to continue doing it, but pay. This doesn't mean the lower level wasn't free.
What's nice about free things is that it's a safety net, and also lowers the barrier for new entrants and trying new ideas. But it's only free up to a point. In MY opinion, you shouldn't be sending 34% of the internet's traffic and expect the same treatment as a person who is hosting a small website. At some point, you're setting up SPECIAL agreements for crying out loud, with tier 1 providers, Google fiber, etc. Your cables are in their physical centers, and that's favoritism, that's physical presence which doesn't scale to millions of companies even theoretically. So yeah, at some point the market participants should be free to negotiate their own agreements and prices, or refuse a level of service that exceeds what a "free" tier would get.
I am talking, of course, about the provider side. Consumers already pay for their service, but I personally think that the UN is right about internet access being a "human right" these days everyone should get an unconditional basic income which is enough to pay for, among other things, a basic level of internet service.
low violence, is an interesting example to start with, since that's exactly the reasoning used to justify the lack of privacy and surveillance we now have. Violence is often individually actually low to zero, until you or a loved-one become a victim. But watch TV and be told how some people are a violent threat, and it can seem high and you become different ---ist.
Netflix doesn't send data over Comcast's network directly. They connect to... was it Cogent? And then Cogent pays Comcast to send that data to Comcast customers. So, Comcast customers pay Comcast for the connection, and Cogent pays Comcast to deliver the data, but Comcast also wants Netflix to pay them to deliver their data.
> Netflix doesn't send data over Comcast's network directly.
According to reports they do.
> They connect to... was it Cogent?
Cogent is one of their IP transit providers, but they have a lot of others as well.
> So, Comcast customers pay Comcast for the connection, and Cogent pays Comcast to deliver the data, but Comcast also wants Netflix to pay them to deliver their data.
I do not believe it's a matter of also. Comcast wants either Cogent or one of Netflix' IP transit providers to pay them or Netflix to pay them directly for any direct connects.
Both do not have to pay. Comcast is fine with either or paying, as long as somebody is paying them.
It's wholly another question if it is reasonable for Comcast to get any payment at all...
20mps? Really? A couple of years ago was high speed. If you want that every development in infrastructure is available to everybody in a couple of years you are not really a minarchist.
A level playingfield? That does not even mean anything.
As for what I think on a particular detail such as 20mbps vs 500kbps ... it shouldn't be up to me, and it shouldn't affect the overall point. The system should have things in place where it would be able to balance the size of the "free layer" against various other expectations in the economy. There are diminishing returns going both ways - having REALLY CRAPPY INTERNET available to poor kids for example who could otherwise create some great stuff online - vs having free high speed wifi on every airplane for everybody.
Replace "level playing field" with "low barrier to entry". Basicay I think that the markets should be distorted to a small extent to create a "free layer" for people and companies to get started and have safety nets etc.
The problem is that its simply not possible, there will never be a "low barrier to entry" into the space industry, or the airplane industry or many other industrys. The amount of investment required is just to high.
I know why people want it, and I think generally that the basic idea is not bad. However the idea that we can controll all markets to achive this goal is just not relistic. This kind of thing was tried in "indian socialism" were they would have permits for every market to controll how many firms operated in each market.
All you need is effective banking and low regulatory burden. A safty net is of course nice, but Im not sure I would put it into "low barrier to entry" category.
That said, I think it's just good policy to have the same for startups. A minimum level of protection (bankruptcy protection, as well as a level playing field) for new entrants. I think that on the level of Netflix, they should indeed pay for special agreements. After all -- come on -- Netflix does special peering agreements with Tier 1 ISPs and their traffic accounts for 34% of all traffic to consumers. So basically, I think the general principle is:
REDISTRIBUTE THE ECONOMICS TO ENSURE THE MINIMUM LEVEL THAT MAINTAINS INNOVATION, FREEDOM, BASIC EXPECTATIONS, BUT BEYOND THAT, LET THE MARKET BE FREE (BARRING REGULATIONS TO MINIMIZE AGAINST NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES).
PS: If you downvote, I'd love for you to actually reply with a reasoned comment.