1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/5177/what-to-think-about-reregulation/

What To Think About Reregulation?

June 12, 2006 by

Apropos Peter Klein’s article today, this past week, economists Arnold Kling, Tyler Cowen, and Greg Mankiw independently weighed in on the issue of ‘net neutrality.’ In addition, today’s edition of the WSJ has an editorial from Steve Forbes taking this “ominous regulation” to task.

Because very few libertarian and even fewer economic-centered outlets have discussed this issue, below is a mini-symposium of other articles on the subject:

The Spectrum Should Be Private Property, Mises.org
Who Owns the Internet?, Mises.org
Terminating Net Neutrality, Mises.org
Network Nationalization: Net Neutrality In Action, Mises.org
Stuck in Neutral, WSJ
What Congress Is Learning About ‘Net Neutrality’, WSJ
The Web’s Worst New Idea, WSJ
Neutrality Check, WSJ
Should the Net be Neutral, WSJ
Neutral Net? Who Are You Kidding?, Wired News
Hardware firms oppose Net neutrality laws, CNET News.com
New Net neutrality plan may ruffle feathers, CNET News.com
Taking Sides on ‘Net Neutrality’, LA Times
Network neutrality? Welcome to the stupid Internet, The Mercury News

Furthermore, telecom analyst Scott Cleland and journalist Declan McCullagh have excellent commentary of this issue on their blogs. And lastly, network guru Martin Geddes gave a good speech which succinctly highlights the seen and unseen of this issue: Freedom to Connect.

Thanks to DJC for the links.

{ 4 comments }

Curt Howland June 12, 2006 at 12:39 pm

Darn, now I wish I’d posted my bit about de-regulation here, instead of attached to Peter Klein’s article. Oh well, anyone interested will read them anyway. :^)

Bravo, LvMI! I’m going to try submitting this to Slashdot to see what happens. Har har har, like they’ll approve it.

Martin Geddes July 2, 2006 at 11:55 am

Just a small correction for the record — “Freedom to Connect” was the name of the conference run by David Isenberg, not the title of my speech (although I wish I could claim such inspiration).

Although David is a strong “pro-neutrality” advocate, many of his friends and not and he has the honourable position of bringing both sides of the debate together – viz Powell’s warning at the same conference against playing the Bell’s poltical game.

Vulchak May 4, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Stop! Try to read this interested book:,

Vstmbpvd June 25, 2008 at 10:04 am

Stop! Try to read this interested book:,

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: