DISQUS

Thanks Tim, I get you. I think your prediction is probably right, that open will win -- not because it's "good and right", but because the market will not likely sustain other models. (And, always appreciated when you reiterate that this is a desired outcome and not a regulatory suggestion.)

It sounds like Lessig's ideal is that "the Internet" would be a frictionless space in which the market resides, but not a participant in the market itself? Is that your reading?

I don't see how libertarians should have an instinct for or against neutrality as a principle. Seems to me a libertarian would want the market outcome. There may be market outcomes that are beneficial to some consumers, yet decidedly non-neutral. Some people may be perfectly happy with walled gardens.

Seems to me the essentially libertarian idea is that markets invent things we can't predict, and that they must be allowed to do so.

How do we know that an end-to-end network is and always will be superior, for all consumers? Shouldn't all possibilities be tested in the market, and shouldn't libertarians desire a plurality of outcomes?

Are where does this centralized authority idea come from? ISPs are not a centralized authority, they are private businesses, pursuing their own interests, that choose to interoperate.

Steve:



I am simply using Comcast as a "Poster Child" to demonstrate that the free market does not immediately correct the malevolent behavior of offending companies.





Traffic shaping is only malevolent behavior from the perspective of the 1% of users taking 50% of the bandwidth. For the other 99%, shaping is beneficial. Don't get caught up in the mock outrage.





One might even call Comcast irresponsible if they don't shape traffic, considering winners and losers.





The free market simply expresses the wishes of consumers. 99% of consumers don't give a damn about traffic shaping and don't consider it malevolent.

Agreed that it's much better than SF trying to provide this themselves. But here's the PR coup: the service has been free all along and is available to anyone.



http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/28/grandcentral-launches-but-only-if-youre-homeless/

Well said Tim. I would make the more subtle point that libertarians of my stripe don't necessarily think that markets produce a single "best" product. They produce the best *outcome*, which is to say, the outcome that best serves the needs of the individuals that participate in the market -- multiple products covering a wider swath of consumer desires.




Also, it's a bit apples-to-oranges in comparing the OS market to the HD format war.





In the former, there is clearly room for more than one OS. The market has produced a plurality, with MS, Apple and Linux, plus the mobile OSs.





In the case of HD formats, that's a bit more of a cartel-ish situation. It's rare that such standards are competitive for any period of time. In fact, the industry could not move forward until the coalesced around a single technology.

I don't doubt it Drew! Hopefully Ted Stevens wasn't on the list. :)

Not sure the Bush admin is market enough, frankly. They're still gov't after all -- no one actually wants to shrink the organization that pays their check. Eg, Kevin Martin.

How about one the fine folks here at TLF? Tim Lee? Adam? Very credible folks.

Drew, have you considered getting a market-oriented person on that panel? Someone not in government?




A point I fear will be missed is that we have many broadband strategies, each being run by separate companies, and not on the taxpayer's dime. The question should be whether the gov't can possibly do better with one "national" plan instead of multiple competitive ones.





(I was on TLF's TPW #35 on this topic.)