This blog is for discussing issues in our complex global economy.
Weighing the Economic Impact of Net Neutrality
I believe net neutrality may not grow at all, thus, no economic growth will come out of it. Like the article states, if there is no competition between providers, it is the main providers at a balanced equilibrium. Is it a bad thing to not have too many options for people to choose from when it comes from broadband services. In my mind, it does not seem like the broadband industries themselves woulod have many competitors, for if there were, customers would always stick with the best providers anyhow. This forces comapnies to match to their competitors and offer the same services. I do fear that over time, jobs will be lost in this field, yet I must say that this field of business is one that may one day no longer need people to run it. Soon the electronics themselves will be able to do everything that a person can do.
I share the same fears as the comment above, I think that one day, regardless of net neutraility guidelines or not, job losses will result and eventually technology will take over an abundance of jobs. This results from the fact that once people choose a netwark, they will stick with it whether there are other choices or not. It’s unfortunate that we are making businesses into oligopolies that then have such a large impact in their division that all parties must match their competitors to ever have a chance at keeping their fans.
Technology is a love/hate relationship. On one hand it benefits us greatly with all the medical advances and automobile advances, just to name a few. But on the other hand, like as the comment above, they do jobs more efficiently cost-wise and labor-wise. In this sense I see technology taking over and creating this job loss in the future. Net neutrality will suffer from what I have aforementioned.
All above comments are very interesting and I shared many of the same thoughts. A lot of sci-fi movies depict robots doing human jobs such as nursing, housecleaning, etc. I think that the way technology is increasing, this is a very possible future, ehich means an even more difficult future for those looking to work. Angelina made some good points about consumers going with the company that provides the best option, and that after a while, all companies will offer the exact same thing. So what is the problem with a monopoly? Perhaps in this situation, nothing. But I do feel technology related job loss is inevitable.
To me technology is one of those things that you just can’t live with and can’t live without. On one side we have technology that gets us information in a matter of seconds, and lets us enjoy things that otherwise would be able to enjoy. But on the other side is the technology that works faster, better and more efficient than any human could ever do. This kind of technology is the kind that is lending to the rise in unemployment, and this is the technology that you just cant live with if you are a hard working person.
The implications of Net Neutrality could be huge for the economy. With one company controlling a monopoly of internet providers, investments and technological advancements could go down. According to the article, however, “the government has tools at its disposal to mitigate these downsides.” I am interested to see what these “tools” are that the government apparently has and how they will work.
Those that are for net neutrality claim that there is currently no “effective competition in broadband internet access services” that would otherwise push the limits of the industry. The author says that there are “quasi-monopolies sharing the balance of power.” He argues that right now with the “quasi-monopolies,” the industry isn’t advancing for the benefit of the society. If the industry was made into a “net neutrality”, investments could go up and technological advancements would increase.
Personally, I believe that whichever option benefits society as a whole the most is the option that we should go with. Of course, both options have their pros and cons. Economically-wise, net neutrality will increase unemployment, but it will push the boundaries of the industry. Without the implementation of net neutrality, the quasi-monopolies will continue their balanced reign of power, keeping unemployment the same, but also preventing the industry from its full potential technologically-wise. There are also those that claim that if nothing is done, unemployment in the industry will increase regardless.
I don’t think that net neutrality will grow very well at all. And with out the net neutrality there will be no economic growth. In the article there was a section talking about competition between providers. If there is no competition then the equilibrium doesn’t balance. I feel like once people have providers they like and are comfortable with, they aren’t likely to change because they are with the best providers already. With all of this going on, it could perhaps lead to more job loses. Which wouldn’t benefit us at all.
Net neutrality has little to no chance of survival in this rapid technological advancement era. However, the econimics of the providers will evolve to provide products and services of the new technologies as they emerge. This being said the employment rate may stagnate or regress since majority of the companies will retain and retrain their workforce or replace with a technologically creative one to keep up with competitors and market demands.
I believe that our dependency on technology has increased in the past and so will it happen in the next several years. This of course, might leave thousands of people without a job since they might be replaced by technology. This is a controversial subject because i a way, as consumers, we want the best technology available for us. But on the contrary, this demand can lead to technology replacing the work that people do.
I must say I am the least technology savy person out there. I pay little attention to the advances in technology and only use it to check my email. Network neutrality was a new concept for me. After reviewing this article and researching network neutrality, i see that it is another sneaky way to control something as great as the internet. I see that everything has its advantages and disadvantages, but i only notice that the application of this idea would only affect something that may still need a chance to grow. I know it is thought in this article that the internet has done its growing to make it as profitable as could be for those in business, but new technology is bound to be discovered soon and one must not put restrictions on such great potential.
Advances in technology have benefited us to some extent, but it is scary to think that technology could take jobs away from people. We want all the latest technology, but will we end up regretting out need for the newest and latest gadgets? Unfortunately this contributes to rise in the unemployment rate.
My first impression when reading this article for the first time that the debate over net neutrality comes down to economics. I think the article does a good job of not being to bias in that it addresses both side of the argument even though it ends up siding with on side. For me personally, I do not think net neutrality will go much. However, think the problem with net neutrality raising unemployment i think the idea that improvements in technology will inevitably increase unemployment is true. I feel like with the increased advancements in technology such as machines are allowing for less flaws and errors specifically in production. It is incredibly to see how much technology has improved so quickly over the last decade which is particularly seen in cell phones today.
neutrality is not the right side to take. Claims of 1,452,943 jobs lost by 2020 are very powerful, and statements that we should just let the competitive market run its course to weed out lesser competition is weak. It makes me think if services like internet and cable that is so widely used should have voted or represented electives to over look the running of these companies because they affect the life of so may americans every day.
I understand that the Net Neutrality would increase the unemployment rate, but see if some companies pay to get their network faster than others, than obviously, that company would be the only company to survive. So, that could make the competitiveness in teh web economy smaller which will decrease total income. So, although thenet neutrality increase the unemployment rate, I think we should have it.
I think that net neutrality is highly overrated. As the article points out, the point of enforcing neutrality is to foster competition. But really there is no competition in many places in America. The broadband companies don’t offer service to remote or poor areas; free market competition was not enough to drive them out there. The government needs to step in here. It should allow one or two companies to take charge of the market, at least for now, and subsidize their expansion. That way, everyone has equal access to internet technology and the benefits it brings.
Net Nutrality has the potential to affect a great deal of jobs and people, but it is not the end of the world, as one sector of the business world closes and the jobs are lost, another opens up and everyone finds a new career. this will not be the last time that something comes along and affects the lives of a couple million people.
Technology is one of the few things in this world that you simply can’t live without. It helps us advance every area of our culture. Technology helps us transmit information in seconds, and allows us to experience things that would not be possible with the technology available even 10 short years ago. Technology is mostly a positive aspect of culture, but at the same time it is possible that it brings a negative influence. If companies use machines and robots for labor, less jobs will be available to qualified workers who could add a human touch to the project. To put it simply, it is impossible to live without technology, but at the same time it could make the already high unemployment rate skyrocket.
I strongly believe that technology is a necessity for us to maintain the way we live today. Although this improvement in technology may increase the number of unemployed, it will have a positive improvement for the economy in the long run.
the part that stcuk me about the economics of this situation is the fact that we as customers have no choice in our provider, whatever is hooked up to our house is what we get. they have basically become monopolies by themselves because they have almost no competition. and now they are trying to raise the price of our internet access, just another way how they nickel and dime us.
Companies aim to be as efficient as possible because efficiency maximizes profits. Technology scares people because machines can do precise work at a high rate and are less expensive then a full time employee. It is a scary thought that so many people could lose their jobs to machines.
It was interesting to read that this article was not biased towards a specific side. Technology is one of the few things in this world that you simply can’t live without and it helps our culture excel as we do. I believe that our dependency on technology has increased in the past and so will it happen in the next several years.Those that are for net neutrality claim that there is currently no “effective competition in broadband internet access services” that would otherwise push the limits of the industry.
Technology is a key element in our growing economy. Coming up with new ways to cut time and increase results ultimate means a component economy. I feel that technology is an important tool for the upward growth of an economy
technology is one of the few things that cant be debated and it is a necessity to live in society. If there is an increase in technological advances than we should use it and accept that technology is something we need
Opponents of net neutrality, mostly giant telecommunication corporations, argue that it will lead to “decreased investment incentives for ISPs and potential impacts on technological development” and many job losses due to reduced revenue growth. For me, it sounds like what mining industry used to argue in Britain during the 80s. They are saying that protectionism and regulations provide companies more incentives to invest in the existing sector. This may be true, but what’s the use for investing in pre-existing sector when everyone else around the world is creating a new content? As history teaches us, fierce competition has more often motivated firms to create innovative market strategies and technologies. Since telecommunication industries and their products are more or less globally intertwined, never confied to one domestic market, large US firms should focus rather on pioneering new sector/content. This way, new value-added jobs will be created to balance the job loss in the current industry.
It is better for an economy to have various competitors of broadband internet to choose from. We cn not be mv=oving into a communist type of view, even for internet. Without competition the prices would be controlled by one source and nothing can be done because there are no other options.
I think technology is really important to all of us. Almost everyone has a cell phone, or an iPod, a laptop, etc. There are so many ways that people are using it, not only for entertainment purposes but also in the work force.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Subscribe in a reader
Blog at WordPress.com.
RSS Entries and RSS Comments