Nice find, AJ.

There are really two aspects of Net Neutrality. One is the role of government. The other is the role of private opportunity in the market. The current Administration - as is typical of progressives - thinks that the only solution involves government control. The problem is that this always leads to cronyism and backroom deals. There are WAY too many examples to list here, but GM, Green Energy, Goldman Sachs, etc. come to mind.

To argue that every packet passing across the Internet is of the same value is ludicrous. The question is should essentially monopolistic providers be allowed to legally extort money from certain content providers under the guise of "prioritization".

well, I have learned to fear their illegal moves, fraud
and cronyism with supporters (like with keystone),
since the legal response to an illegal action can
take years and years, while the action's effects
continue. it's like being accused of rape -- clearing
your reputation never quite balances the scales. -- j

In addition to the municipal cable monopolies they enjoy, Comcast has also helped fund efforts in more than 20 states that don't allow cities to contract to set up broadband Internet for their citizens, even if that's what the people want and the corporations aren't providing the service.

In direct response to the original post, Mark Cuban’s parallel to Atlas Shrugged is flawed. Hank Reardon invented his metal. He has all rights to it. Comcast did not invent the internet and bandwidth. The military invented the internet using our tax dollars and then the university system expounded upon it, also largely our tax dollars. Yes, Comcast improved upon the infrastructure and I do not begrudge Comcast protecting and capitalizing on its investment.
This is a complex subject. People seem to view the term ‘net neutrality’ to imply ‘no regulation’. Though in reality it is brought before the government to regulate a provider, in this case Comcast, from restricting bandwidth access based on data type and origin or destination.
My position as a Comcast customer is that I have purchased the bandwidth at a subscribed rate and should have access to any service across it at that subscribed rate no exceptions. Comcast is receiving my fee for the service. Without net neutrality Comcast can decide which data is allowed across the bandwidth and from which source. Additionally, they could throttle speeds to and from destinations effectively holding hostage that bandwidth which is deemed in competition.
My consumer response to that may be to go to a competitive provider, ATT or Direct TV (which is still tangent as they have to get their content from somewhere via overlapping infrastructure(s).

Fear? Of THIS admin and doj? Not at all. Nuremberg Laws were one thing, but obama administration members couldn't agree on what to order on a pizza. "The Emperor has No Clothes," and (the MSM's willful blindness vis-a-vis video evidence of Dem consultants lying about ACA notwithstanding), NO ONE trusts obama admin officials to do the right thing anymore. The bloom is off obama's rose, and the voters are just counting the days.

because law implies fear of government and its force?! -- j

yes;;; we probably have cronyism operating here! -- j

I completely agree. But the word monopoly bothers me. True monopoly has a govt component which violates others property rights. When a city did a deal with Comcast it excluded others in the business from easily competing. Reardon dominates his market because he invented a superior product. He can 't stop a competitor from inventing another kind of metal to compete with his.

"Societies like to pretend that they operate based on morality, but they don't. They operate based on law." - excerpt from "The Reader"

I don't know, so information is greatly appreciated!
everything which I have heard about comcast has
been negative (we're with directv and tds, here), so
first-hand info is lacking.

if it is cronyism, then that's typical for the present
state of corruption!!! -- j

is it not true that Comcast has one of... if not THE lowest customer satisfaction ratings of all ISPs?

is it not true that they enjoy and support government regulations that thwart competition in their sandbox?

I don't think the issue is trust-busting, but more like a reaction to pervasive crony-'capitalism'...

hm?

ummmmm....... "[net neutrality] would stop de facto monopolies
like Comcast from creating artificial barriers between
new companies and subscribers"

I thought that Hank Rearden's monopoly on his new
alloy was a good thing, and well deserved. . if a
monopoly exists in a just society (like we had one),
isn't it a transitory thing unless sustained by the
force of government or the mob?

so, the bloggers want the government to trust-bust
Comcast. why? too damned good? -- j

So, Atlas Shrugged is Objectivist "pulp" fiction?

Thanks

Thanks for the update, db. I am looking through what you sent me today.

I have come to love Mark Cuban's position on Shark Tank. He promotes entrepreneurs hard work and busting butt and isn't afraid to say out loud when his BS meter rises. I love his comments and how he exemplifies most of what I believe in. So wonderful to hear him speak highly of AS. It is always so cool when you see people you admire talking about or reading works that you admire.

Not logic. He is against patents, but he wants his intellectual property protected. For instance, try to sell a Dallas Mavericks jersey without paying a royalty to Cuban or try rebroadcasting a mavericks game without paying a royalty and see if he screams theft. Cuban wants to have his cake and eat it to. That is not Objectivist that is standard cronyism.

Awesome that a successful modern entrepreneur is making such a case leveraging her foundations.

He also is clearly not just a selfish twit, as people assert Ayn Rand advocates are. He is one of the more philanthropic, approachable Shark Tank Sharks.

Great!

I knew that you had issues with Mark Cuban, k. My only experiences with him in recent memory are his provocative comments as Dallas Mavericks owner, for which he definitely fits the "maverick" label, and as one of the sharks on Shark Tank on CNBC. Shark Tank certainly exemplifies Gulch values. I have seen Mark Cuban as a modern-day Rearden, but I certainly am willing to be educated to the contrary.

And of course no one addresses the root cause which would be government deciding who your cable provider is in the first place. If we took that power away problem solved. And of course that is the crux to the journalist 's little parody. Rand did not have Reardon in bed with the government to force people to buy only his metal or none at all. But I did appreciate the AS quote -the perfect response to net neutrality which went over the writer 's head. There is no such thing as perfect competition.

Yes he made his money off of his patent portfolio. Now he wants to keep others from doing the same. He sure understands trademarks though. Just try to make your own Maverick shirts.

Some in this group may not like Mark Cuban, but I certainly do. People either have forgotten or never knew that he was a founder of Compuserve, which later got merged into America Online. I got onto the Internet at the whopping speed of 312 bits per second back in 1985 using Compuserve. As an 18-year-old high schooler, I was the first person in my county on Compuserve. Their service was Gulch-worthy.

Kudos to Mark Cuban. Go with Galt.

Good.

My alma mater sends me papers by staff and students, one was on net neutrality.
The argument of the paper is we should have it as it keeps average speeds up, some analysis is given -if there are a range of plans, more customers will move to the high speed service thus slowing it down. (!).
This misses the point, even if with good logic a performance case could be made for net neutrality, that is not an argument for regulation. On another thread, someone wrote (was it freedomforall?) that regulation may (the correct word is 'will') increase entry costs so it reduces competition. Again, what passes for government intervention 'for the common good' fails that purpose, it is a tax on consumers which pays for regulators and cronies.