4 ms·

For fairness, I think I should state the opposing position. By creating packaged services, internet access (though not "neutral" access to all parts of the int

For fairness, I think I should state the opposing position. By creating packaged services, internet access (though not "neutral" access to all parts of the internet equally) could become cheaper for a lot of people. FB could choose (they do this, notably in low income countries) to pay the ISP costs so their users can use the service for free. Google could do the same. Access to the internet could use the same economic levers that exist widely on the internet, which have a tendency to free, and to expansive participation. The likes of Google & FB stand to benefit most from (for example) connecting the last 50% in low income countries. They have the resources to pay for it. Letting them will (at the margin) mean more access for more people. It's hard to argue that for those people, theoretical net neutrality is worth more than net access. ^I'm on the other side of this position. But, I think it's hard to justify it on "normal" grounds, by analogy to other industries or abstract legal/legislative principles. Effectively, net neutrality means limiting the competitive scope of one part of the internet to enrich the comptetitive dynamics of another part. In practice, I think this is a really good thing. But it's hard to put that into legislatively acceptable terms, which are supposed to be based on general principles. You need to accept a judgemnt call. The ISPs' job is less important, on the margin. The innovative potential of (for example) the web is enourmous in comparison. ISPs are infrastructure businesses, naturally oligopolistic and with a tendency towards corporate or state cronyism. The web is a platform where you can actually compete for a patch without a global-scale war chest. We have lots of examples of winners that won because they were good, even though they had few resources. All that said, the internet itself is becoming so centralized that the argument is getting muddied.

croon 9y ago
> The likes of Google & FB stand to benefit most from (for example) connecting the last 50% in low income countries. They have the resources to pay for it. Letting them will (at the margin) mean more access for more people. It's hard to argue that for those people, theoretical net neutrality is worth more than net access. If they stand to gain from more people getting on the internet, they can pay for it right now, without scrapping net neutrality. The only reason to scrap net neutrality first is to make it possible for incumbents to lock people into their service so new disruptors can't challenge them. People against net neutrality are either paid or have an extremely naive view of what a "free market" is.

croon 9y ago

> The likes of Google & FB stand to benefit most from (for example) connecting the last 50% in low income countries. They have the resources to pay for it. Letting them will (at the margin) mean more access for more people. It's hard to argue that for those people, theoretical net neutrality is worth more than net access. If they stand to gain from more people getting on the internet, they can pay for it right now, without scrapping net neutrality. The only reason to scrap net neutrality first is to make it possible for incumbents to lock people into their service so new disruptors can't challenge them. People against net neutrality are either paid or have an extremely naive view of what a "free market" is.