When government “helps” run something – that something is terrible. The bigger a hand government has in running it – the more terrible it is. If it is exclusively government-run – the terrible-ness is ingrained and inherent. And the longer government runs the show – the worse the terrible-ness becomes.
Network Neutrality is a really stupid, anti-capitalism policy – that outlaws on the Internet several basic, fundamental free market tenets that are in practice in every other sector of a functioning economy.
In the next several weeks, expect the EC’s Competition Directorate to decide that Google is in fact dominant with >90% share of Internet search in Europe and that Google has abused its search dominance by biasing its own Shopping service over competitors. It also could formally charge Google for abuse of its search dominance in contractually tying Google Search and other search-driven apps like Maps, YouTube, etc. to Android to extend its search dominance to mobile search and to the operating system market where Android now owns >80% share.
Network Neutrality is a unilateral and completely unnecessary government-intrusion-and-imposition on the entirety of the Internet – and the trillions-of-dollars-economy that has arisen around it. Net Neutrality is one fantasy – based upon another.
In this episode of the Budget & Tax News podcast, managing editor, Jesse Hathaway is joined by Heartland Institute policy advisor and Johnson & Wales University associate economics professor Adam C. Smith. Smith and Hathaway discuss Virginia’s recent legalization of sharing-economy transportation companies Lyft and Uber.
Much of the federal government’s communications core management and operations hasn’t changed since the General Services Administration created the Federal Telecommunications Service in 1960.
USA Today asked me to write a counterpoint to their editorial calling for the abolition of Fee-For-Service payment in health care. Their editorial is here, and my counter is here.
Unfortunately, USA Today did not show me the article I was responding to. Now that I have read it, I want to make a few other observations.