3 ms·
He never claims that the ISPs have a right to regulate traffic because they have to remain competitive (whatever that means). He makes it very clear that ISPs h
by dwwoelfel 17y ago
He never claims that the ISPs have a right to regulate traffic because they have to remain competitive (whatever that means). He makes it very clear that ISPs have a right to regulate traffic because they own the infrastructure.
The alternative is "government control of the privately owned infrastructure that makes the Internet possible."
How many choices you have doesn't determine whether something is or is not a free market. That's like saying that there is no free market in tablet computers because you can only buy iPads or JooJoos. Men are free to create and sell their own tablets, just as men are free to create their own ISPs. That is what makes it a free market.
Of course, the ISP market isn't totally free, but the solution is to remove regulations that violate the property rights of the ISPs. Net neutrality only makes the market less free.
- kreneskyp 17y agoThe premise of net neutrality is that the internet is a limited resource. The physical space required for building infrastructure is limited, effectively making the internet a limited resource as well. Most cities have already leased out the space for building networks, or let companies own the poles and conduits outright. This is why i took issue with his car showroom example. Its a big difference when there are plenty of places to build a showroom. There's only one easement behind my house. The poles are owned by comcast, the ground has sewers.
- dwwoelfel 17y agoSo the only way to get an internet signal into your house is through the wires owned by Comcast? Do they also own the power lines? The phone lines? The space on your roof for a satellite dish? Even if there was no other way to get an internet signal into your house, that still wouldn't justify violating Comcast's property rights.