Thank you Zonker. That's probably the most cogent reply I've received to my post.
The issue I have with your post is that Internet access is not a monopoly. With wireless, cable, satellite, and the phone company most people probably have at least four or five different means to connect to the Internet. We have a competitive marketplace that is thriving with innovation, not a single provider like Ma Bell that you site as the rationale behind Title II.
Most of the arguments that I've seen in support of net neutrality paint doomsday scenarios if we don't increase government regulation. If doomsday occurs, I might back move government regulation, but it hasn't.
Many cite the Netflix example. ISPs trying to charge Netflix to prioritize it's traffic and in some cases Netflix agreed to pay the fare. This cost will ultimately be passed on to Netflix subscribers. Netflix (and I'm a subscriber) is a bandwidth hog that will slow down traffic on the Internet. Who should pay for the increased infrastructure to support Netflix traffic? The subscribers should. Under net neutrality all traffic is treated equally, so we all pay for the bandwidth hogs either in terms of increased ISP charges (to fund infrastructure) or in reduced performance, not to mention increased taxes on our Internet access (someone has to pay for all the regulators).
It's true that many rural areas are under served. Government grants can solve this without net neutrality. I'm not an anarchist, as some in this thread have posited, I just believe in limited government control.
Lesser of two evils. I'll choose the free market over government governed markets every time. Reminds me of the most terrifying words in the English language "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".
Specifically, the market adapts way quicker than government does. If an unfair practice becomes law, it takes on a life of it's own and is very hard to change. E.g. anti-sodomy laws that are still on the books or just recently removed. The market adapts, new competitors and products force change - if government had regulated the buggy whip industry we'd still be riding horses because cars would have been considered unfair competition. The buggy whip companies would have claimed cars are unsafe and some government stooge would have passed a law limiting or outlawing the use of cars. The next great Internet innovation will face the same kind of scrutiny by a government that supports the current technology. Look no further than what's going on with Tesla, Uber, Lyft, the auto dealers and taxi companies are fighting tooth and nail to keep their markets - with government regulations as their weapon of choice.
Let the games begin. Now that the FCC will regulate the Internet, rich corporations will have even more control, resulting in reduced competition, lower performance, and higher prices.
We were better off with a free Internet.
Freedom through regulation? I don't think so. It just doesn't make sense that a site like techdirt would support more government control of the Internet.
On the post: Congressional Opponents Of Net Neutrality Try To Shame FCC Boss For Standing Up To ISPs
Re: Re: Re: Re: You just don't get it.
The issue I have with your post is that Internet access is not a monopoly. With wireless, cable, satellite, and the phone company most people probably have at least four or five different means to connect to the Internet. We have a competitive marketplace that is thriving with innovation, not a single provider like Ma Bell that you site as the rationale behind Title II.
Most of the arguments that I've seen in support of net neutrality paint doomsday scenarios if we don't increase government regulation. If doomsday occurs, I might back move government regulation, but it hasn't.
Many cite the Netflix example. ISPs trying to charge Netflix to prioritize it's traffic and in some cases Netflix agreed to pay the fare. This cost will ultimately be passed on to Netflix subscribers. Netflix (and I'm a subscriber) is a bandwidth hog that will slow down traffic on the Internet. Who should pay for the increased infrastructure to support Netflix traffic? The subscribers should. Under net neutrality all traffic is treated equally, so we all pay for the bandwidth hogs either in terms of increased ISP charges (to fund infrastructure) or in reduced performance, not to mention increased taxes on our Internet access (someone has to pay for all the regulators).
It's true that many rural areas are under served. Government grants can solve this without net neutrality. I'm not an anarchist, as some in this thread have posited, I just believe in limited government control.
On the post: Congressional Opponents Of Net Neutrality Try To Shame FCC Boss For Standing Up To ISPs
Re: Re: You just don't get it.
Specifically, the market adapts way quicker than government does. If an unfair practice becomes law, it takes on a life of it's own and is very hard to change. E.g. anti-sodomy laws that are still on the books or just recently removed. The market adapts, new competitors and products force change - if government had regulated the buggy whip industry we'd still be riding horses because cars would have been considered unfair competition. The buggy whip companies would have claimed cars are unsafe and some government stooge would have passed a law limiting or outlawing the use of cars. The next great Internet innovation will face the same kind of scrutiny by a government that supports the current technology. Look no further than what's going on with Tesla, Uber, Lyft, the auto dealers and taxi companies are fighting tooth and nail to keep their markets - with government regulations as their weapon of choice.
On the post: Congressional Opponents Of Net Neutrality Try To Shame FCC Boss For Standing Up To ISPs
You just don't get it.
We were better off with a free Internet.
Freedom through regulation? I don't think so. It just doesn't make sense that a site like techdirt would support more government control of the Internet.
Next >>