Economists voted against a net neutrality principle in 2014. They may be changing their minds.

Economists voted against a net neutrality principle in 2014. They may be changing their minds.

7 years ago
Anonymous $ZOEEBQ1zf0

https://qz.com/1142400/economists-voted-against-the-net-neutrality-principle-banning-fast-lines-in-2014-they-may-be-changing-their-minds/

In 2014, the University of Chicago Booth School of Business assembled 45 distinguished economists across the political spectrum to ask what they thought of a major principle of net neutrality. The gist of the question put to them: Should content companies be able to pay internet service providers for faster, better internet service? (the full question is here 1). Such a policy would create “fast lanes,” or preferred distribution for companies that paid for the privilege, potentially shutting out startups and new competitors who couldn’t afford it.

The economists, unsurprisingly, were highly suspicious of interfering with the market. Sentiment toward the idea was split, with 40% in support of it (contravening today’s net neutrality regulations) and 36% registering “uncertain.” Only 11% disagreed that content providers should be allowed to prioritize. When weighted for confidence, those registering uncertainty edged out those in favor.

Economists voted against a net neutrality principle in 2014. They may be changing their minds.

Dec 1, 2017, 12:22am UTC
https://qz.com/1142400/economists-voted-against-the-net-neutrality-principle-banning-fast-lines-in-2014-they-may-be-changing-their-minds/ >In 2014, the University of Chicago Booth School of Business assembled 45 distinguished economists across the political spectrum to ask what they thought of a major principle of net neutrality. The gist of the question put to them: Should content companies be able to pay internet service providers for faster, better internet service? (the full question is here 1). Such a policy would create “fast lanes,” or preferred distribution for companies that paid for the privilege, potentially shutting out startups and new competitors who couldn’t afford it. >The economists, unsurprisingly, were highly suspicious of interfering with the market. Sentiment toward the idea was split, with 40% in support of it (contravening today’s net neutrality regulations) and 36% registering “uncertain.” Only 11% disagreed that content providers should be allowed to prioritize. When weighted for confidence, those registering uncertainty edged out those in favor.