Someone please tell me this guy makes some valid points because as far as I can tell this is almost Marsha Blackburn-esque on the bullshit meter. He even had to throw in a Marx reference for Christ's sake! Come on man!!!!Sooner or later, under FCC regulation of the Internet, there will be “regulatory capture”—large established firms exploiting regulations to suppress the emergence of small, creative startups. Because it will be impossible for the FCC to keep close tabs on thousands of Internet companies, they will find it expedient to limit the number of participants, finding it easier to oversee a few large corporations than countless smaller ones.
Think of the investment implications here: Who knows how many would-be startups that might have become the next Facebook or Twitter may be strangled in their cribs by FCC regulators? Think of all the new millionaires that won’t be created. Successful investing in the Internet will be influenced greatly by which companies the FCC’s policies favor, meaning that the homework needed to discover which companies have the best business plan may not be as important as following what the FCC regulators do.
Net neutrality wants to stop companies from assigning priorities to Internet traffic. The problem is, prioritization is the most elementary and necessary feature of economic activity. In a world of finite resources, capacities, and time, rational humans assign priority to more highly valued options with the marketplace deciding what those values are. Saying that everything must be treated equally echoes Marx’s “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”—a deadly ethos of leveling which, in practice, has leveled wealth downward wherever humans have been misguided enough to live by that principle.
For government to step in and protect weak, relatively inefficient and uneconomic competitors in the name of “fairness” is to reward mediocrity, cripple economic progress, and leave consumers poorer.
By limiting competition, the FCC will cause Internet prices to rise. [uh.....]
The guy basically proves his own points wrong in his own article.
Oh snap check out his reply to someone:
Oh man read the comments on that Forbes article for a good laugh! No one agrees with the writer. Haha...Personally, I would rather have competing, privately owned companies making decisions about what websites can be visited than the government. At least in the private market most of us can make a switch if we disagree with a company’s actions.