THIS IS WHAT IDEOLOGICAL ECONOMISTS HAVE DONE TO THE CASE FOR MARKETS WHERE POSSIBLE
Geoff Huston, Chief Scientist at ‘Asia Pacific Network Information Centre’, posts on the complications
of leaving a threatened over-congestion of cable streaming (such as from multiple-NETFLIX type
services) the market to sort out, instead of the State regulators HERE
“The topic of network neutrality and the issue of video streamers is causing considerable industry angst.
Video content apparently stresses out the capacity of access networks in many areas, and while it is the
actuality of traffic congestion, or the threat of traffic congestion, it's a situation that has attracted
considerable public comment (John Oliver's satirical commentary is perhaps the best example, although
in this case I'm not entirely sure it was satire!). This is a matter that affects consumers not only in the
United States, but following in the footsteps of Netflix's global expansion we've see a similar debate about
the positions of content and carriage providers in various European countries and South America. When
we pump very large quantities of streaming video across an access network then many access providers
are tempted to see this as an opportunity rather than a problem, and look for ways to extract a premium
revenue stream from what many consumers appear to regard as a premium service. …”
To which he adds his APNIC punch line:
“But doing little other than hoping that Adam Smith's invisible hand will solve all of this through the actions of competitive suppliers to an open market is probably just wishful thinking.”
Now we see what a ‘fine mess’ modern economists’ got us into, with their believing in myths of invisible-handed
fairies at the bottom of the garden, and worse, persuading the public to believe in them too. This is a cheap shot
for high-rent seeking government advisors to dismiss economists from influence.
Follow the link to see how Geoff Huston makes his (long) case on behalf of APNIC.