3 ms·

> Any action against net neutrality is action against customers. How did you reach that conclusion? It's like saying "Any action against all-you-can-eat buffe

> Any action against net neutrality is action against customers. How did you reach that conclusion? It's like saying "Any action against all-you-can-eat buffets is action against customers". Do you believe in pay neutrality, search results neutrality, store catalog neutrality, journal opinion neutrality, etc? How about Tesla making superchargers free to Tesla cars only? The world is not neutral, and that's completely fine. I don't see why it should be different for ISPs. If lack of options is the problem then all of our focus should be put toward making the field more competitive, not solidify and demotivate existing monopolies by dictating their business model. I'm sure Net Neutrality is motivated by good intentions, but I can't see any long-term benefits to it.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
Net Neutrality itself is an ideal. It is distinct from any regulation enforcing it. Net Neutrality means the internet itself is a free market. > How did you reach that conclusion? I haven't heard a single point to the contrary, and yes, I have asked several times in several places for one. The only statements I have heard against net neutrality regulation are against its being regulation, and nothing else. The only parties with something to gain from a non-neutral internet are ISPs. That gain comes at the cost of abusing customers, to varying degrees. Your original comment was lamenting the current lack of competition between ISPs. Can I take that to mean you believe in free markets? Well, the internet itself is a market, and currently free (as in freedom) for the vast majority of its users. There are many obvious advantages to this. That freedom depends on users' ability to use it however they want to. Clearly any constraint on the use of the internet goes against that freedom. For ISPs who want to increase profits rather than improve infrastructure, a non-neutral internet is clearly a way to do that, allowing for new sources of revenue, and the right to blame customers who use more bandwidth for "using the internet wrong", rather than themselves for not having built the necessary infrastructure. Clearly, such actions are to the detriment of customers. That brings us to the regulation part of Net Neutrality regulation. Bad actors - in this case, ISPs who would rather abuse customers than help them - need a significant reason to do otherwise, usually financial. There are two clear reasons we can give them: 1. A free market. With competition, customers can choose the provider to support, giving ISPs a financial reason not to abuse customers. 2. Regulation. If it is illegal to abuse customers, and that law is enforced, ISPs have a fiscal reason not to abuse customers. Since we do not have a free market with competition between ISPs, the clear choice is regulation. If that point ever changes, I will be totally fine with removing the regulation, albeit my own (potentially unpopular) opinion. Like any other Libertarian, I am very skeptical of regulation. Before I accept the notion of something being regulated, I am concerned with why it is needed, what alternatives there are, and what detriment that regulation will have. So far, I have lined out why we need net neutrality regulation, what alternative there is, and why it is not currently viable, leaving me with what detriment the regulation itself will have. After careful consideration, I cannot find any detriment to net neutrality regulation. The idea that this specific regulation will hurt free market competition, which Ajit Pai claimed as his reason for removing the regulation, is not only nonsense: it is malicious.

thomastjeffery 9y ago

Net Neutrality itself is an ideal. It is distinct from any regulation enforcing it. Net Neutrality means the internet itself is a free market. > How did you reach that conclusion? I haven't heard a single point to the contrary, and yes, I have asked several times in several places for one. The only statements I have heard against net neutrality regulation are against its being regulation, and nothing else. The only parties with something to gain from a non-neutral internet are ISPs. That gain comes at the cost of abusing customers, to varying degrees. Your original comment was lamenting the current lack of competition between ISPs. Can I take that to mean you believe in free markets? Well, the internet itself is a market, and currently free (as in freedom) for the vast majority of its users. There are many obvious advantages to this. That freedom depends on users' ability to use it however they want to. Clearly any constraint on the use of the internet goes against that freedom. For ISPs who want to increase profits rather than improve infrastructure, a non-neutral internet is clearly a way to do that, allowing for new sources of revenue, and the right to blame customers who use more bandwidth for "using the internet wrong", rather than themselves for not having built the necessary infrastructure. Clearly, such actions are to the detriment of customers. That brings us to the regulation part of Net Neutrality regulation. Bad actors - in this case, ISPs who would rather abuse customers than help them - need a significant reason to do otherwise, usually financial. There are two clear reasons we can give them: 1. A free market. With competition, customers can choose the provider to support, giving ISPs a financial reason not to abuse customers. 2. Regulation. If it is illegal to abuse customers, and that law is enforced, ISPs have a fiscal reason not to abuse customers. Since we do not have a free market with competition between ISPs, the clear choice is regulation. If that point ever changes, I will be totally fine with removing the regulation, albeit my own (potentially unpopular) opinion. Like any other Libertarian, I am very skeptical of regulation. Before I accept the notion of something being regulated, I am concerned with why it is needed, what alternatives there are, and what detriment that regulation will have. So far, I have lined out why we need net neutrality regulation, what alternative there is, and why it is not currently viable, leaving me with what detriment the regulation itself will have. After careful consideration, I cannot find any detriment to net neutrality regulation. The idea that this specific regulation will hurt free market competition, which Ajit Pai claimed as his reason for removing the regulation, is not only nonsense: it is malicious.