Net Neutrality and Comcast

Net Neutrality is a joke.  It is an attempt to fix a symptom of a bigger problem -- lack of competition.

Supporters of Net Neutrality will tell you that lack of regulation is what allowed Comcast and Time Warner to become the powerhouse that they are.  That is just not the case.

How did this happen?

The Cable Communications Act of 1984 established the first set of regulations around cable companies.  Local municipalities were given the power to act as a franchisee to license cable operations in their areas.  The cable companies were subject to a franchise fee, facility and equipment requirements, as well as some broad requirements to provide access to local content/programming.

This resulted in very few instances of cable companies overlapping their coverage area.  Do you remember when you would travel to your relatives' house in the next town over and all their channels were different?  That's because your cable providers differed from town to town.  It just wasn't cost effective to negotiate for franchise rights with the local municipality, duplicate an existing network of physical cables, and be forced to compete with another company.

So cable companies did the most logical thing to expand business -- they merged.  The Wall Street Journal posted a great chart that shows the consolidation of cable companies over the past two decades (image below).  Twenty years later, Time Warner Cable and Comcast are consistently the most hated companies in America.

 

Government Regulation

So how do we fix this problem?  Some people argue that government regulation is the answer.  In almost every case, when the government attempts to regulate a private industry it results in higher prices for the consumer.  Another proposed solution is to make the cable lines a public utility and regulate it similar to phone lines.  How much have phone lines evolved over the past 50 years?  When a company's profits are regulated by the government, it removes incentives to reinvest or reinvent the technology.  With something as powerful as the internet, the last thing we want to do is hinder its growth.

The Solution

The solution is to break up the monopolies horizontally.  The physical cable network should not be owned and operated by the same company that provides the internet service.  That is the root cause of all the problems.  Allow ISP's to purchase non-discriminatory usage of the cable lines and do not allow ISP's to write language into their contracts that restrict their competition from using those same lines.  This promotes actual competition and removes a huge barrier to entry for the ISP market.  

"Net Neutrality" would be a positive by-product as well!  The companies that own the physical infrastructure don't care what data is moving through their lines because they have no interest in the content as long as the ISP's are paying for the usage.  The ISP's, on the other hand, would still be able to favor one source of content over another if the free market supports them.  With the introduction of more competition, the free market would be able to decide which ISP's win and lose based on quality of service instead of government bureaucrats and lobbyists.

If you look at Comcast right now, they are a content provider (e.g. Hulu) and a data mover (ISP), not to mention they are heavily invested in the physical infrastructure of the internet.  So naturally, Comcast will take advantage of opportunities to limit/hinder the growth of its competition.  That is a huge conflict of interest for the consumer who wants cheap, high quality internet content in a variety of options. 

Vaccination Q & A

Do vaccinations work?  Yes.  There is absolutely no denying that fact.  Feel free to ask Google yourself.  The evidence is overwhelmingly positive.

Should the government require vaccinations?  In a perfect world, no, the free market would have led us to vaccinations because it is the safe and efficient thing to do.  However, we are too far down the path to go back now.  You are free to choose if you want to send your kids to public, private, or home school.  In order to go to public school, the government requires your kids to be vaccinated (with some exceptions).  This is no different from a private business setting their own rules and regulations.  The government is free to regulate the services it provides.

Should we have any freedom to choose which vaccinations we give our kids?  Yes.  The most dangerous viruses are the ones that are required by most states before kids can enter public school -- measles, tetanus, polio, etc.  Flu and other less dangerous viruses, however, are completely up to you.  Not all flu vaccinations have high success rates, and the flu strains are rarely fatal. 

Do vaccinations cause autism?  This is a theory, currently.  There are studies that are inconclusive at best. 

Should we continue to research vaccinations and their effects?  Absolutely.  If there is even the slightest doubt that vaccinations could be harmful in anyway, then it's our responsibility to keep researching and testing until that doubt is gone. 

Should we continue to seek improvements in vaccinations that make them as safe as possible?  Yes. 

Are there people who are overreacting about vaccinations causing autism?  Yes.  There is a current trend right now for all those "forward thinking" people that involves not getting your children vaccinated.  Despite all evidence supporting vaccinations, there are parents who would rather risk the spread of diseases to their kids and others instead of risking the theory of vaccinations causing autism.

Should parent's get their kids vaccinated?  Yes.  And if you are scared of vaccinations causing autism, a common compromise is to spread out the timeline that your child receives the vaccinations.  Senator Rand Paul, a doctor, chose to stagger the vaccinations over a period of time for his children.  In my opinion, this is the best strategy to avoid any potential side effects.

Are vaccinations being blown out of proportion for political reasons?  Of course.  Politicians would make an issue out of cutting the edges off sandwich bread if they thought it would gain them political advantage -- especially in an election year.