US

Net Neutrality II

Considering both distributional effects and changes in efficiency, it is a good idea to let companies that send video or other content to consumers pay more to Internet service providers for the right to send that traffic using faster or higher quality service.

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Participant University Vote Confidence Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu
Daron Acemoglu
MIT
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
Alesina
Alberto Alesina
Harvard
Agree
2
Bio/Vote History
Altonji
Joseph Altonji
Yale
Agree
6
Bio/Vote History
High bandwidth traffic imposes externalities on other users.
Auerbach
Alan Auerbach
Berkeley
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Autor
David Autor
MIT
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Net neutrality is a fiction. Hire Akamai (et al.) to mirror your servers worldwide to speed content to your users. One user: Healthcare.gov!
-see background information here
Baicker
Katherine Baicker
University of Chicago
Agree
2
Bio/Vote History
Banerjee
Abhijit Banerjee
MIT
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
I worry it will crowd out the public goods that make the internet uniquely valuable unless bandwidth gets so cheap that it doesn't matter.
Bertrand
Marianne Bertrand
Chicago
Disagree
4
Bio/Vote History
Brunnermeier
Markus Brunnermeier
Princeton
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Chetty
Raj Chetty
Harvard
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Chevalier
Judith Chevalier
Yale
Uncertain
10
Bio/Vote History
Regs have to address vertical price squeeze motivated price discrimination.
Currie
Janet Currie
Princeton
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
The broadband industry does not seem to be very competitive, so allowing it to charge more to content providers may not improve the market.
Cutler
David Cutler
Harvard
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
Deaton
Angus Deaton
Princeton
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Duffie
Darrell Duffie
Stanford
Strongly Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
If all qualities sell at the same price, markets cannot allocate quality efficiently. Works for soap, wine, and haircuts; why not Internet?
Edlin
Aaron Edlin
Berkeley
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
Faster service is valuable and this is one way we may get it but adverse effects are also possible.
Eichengreen
Barry Eichengreen
Berkeley
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Einav
Liran Einav
Stanford
Disagree
9
Bio/Vote History
Fair
Ray Fair
Yale
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Finkelstein
Amy Finkelstein
MIT
Agree
4
Bio/Vote History
Goldberg
Pinelopi Goldberg
Yale
Agree
6
Bio/Vote History
Goolsbee
Austan Goolsbee
Chicago
Uncertain
8
Bio/Vote History
did any else notice how slippery this hill we are camping on seems?
Greenstone
Michael Greenstone
University of Chicago
Uncertain
7
Bio/Vote History
there is an obvious potential efficiency gain but there is also potential for a harmful "vertical price squeeze". net effect is unclear.
Hall
Robert Hall
Stanford
Uncertain
7
Bio/Vote History
This is a total side issue. The central issue is the perennial last-mile problem--the market power of the cable and phone companies.
Hart
Oliver Hart
Harvard
Uncertain
6
Bio/Vote History
Letting price vary with quality is good if there is enough competition. I don't know if that's true here. If not the answer is less clear.
Holmström
Bengt Holmström
MIT
Agree
6
Bio/Vote History
Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby
Stanford
Strongly Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
Answer obvious on efficiency grounds. On distribution, use other means to redistribute to poor--not covert internet cross subsidization.
Hoynes
Hilary Hoynes
Berkeley
Uncertain
7
Bio/Vote History
Clear gain to providing faster service at higher costs. Uncertain comes from potential GE effects in reducing access for those unable to pay
Judd
Kenneth Judd
Stanford
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Kaplan
Steven Kaplan
Chicago Booth
Uncertain
9
Bio/Vote History
Kashyap
Anil Kashyap
Chicago Booth
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Presumably creates strong incentives for vertical integration. Not clear if that is good or not.
Klenow
Pete Klenow
Stanford
Agree
1
Bio/Vote History
Levin
Jonathan Levin
Stanford Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Maskin
Eric Maskin
Harvard
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Nordhaus
William Nordhaus
Yale
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Obstfeld
Maurice Obstfeld
Berkeley
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Saez
Emmanuel Saez
Berkeley
Agree
2
Bio/Vote History
Samuelson
Larry Samuelson
Yale
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
This would be a great idea if the market for service provision was competitive, but is less obvious with our current market.
Scheinkman
José Scheinkman
Columbia University
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
In the absence of robust competition in broadband, regulation is needed to help new applications, services and content.
Schmalensee
Richard Schmalensee
MIT
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
It is not generally good policy to restrict firms' product offerings, but there seem to be other considerations.
Shapiro
Carl Shapiro
Berkeley Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Shimer
Robert Shimer
University of Chicago
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Clearly winners and losers from this policy and clearly the market is imperfect. This is a hard call
Stokey
Nancy Stokey
University of Chicago
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Thaler
Richard Thaler
Chicago Booth
Agree
1
Bio/Vote History
Seems like those who cause congestion should pay more. I know some worry that ISPs will play favorites, but that should be preventable.
Udry
Christopher Udry
Northwestern
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Net neutrality has worked well, and likely maximizes welfare in the short-run. Longer-term investment incentives are the counter-argument.
-see background information here