3 ms·
It seems to me that this particular counter-argument fails, because the floodgates are already open. We've seen this with recent federal action to shut down var
by Bud 16y ago
It seems to me that this particular counter-argument fails, because the floodgates are already open. We've seen this with recent federal action to shut down various domains, without a warrant, and certainly without any kind of due process.
If the gov't is going to nuke domains on a whim anyway, I don't think that some general fantasy about preventing general gov't interference with the net is a good reason to oppose net neutrality. At all.
Nor do I find the argument about "free markets" compelling. In this case, I suspect the free market is likely to find ways to take more money from consumers, rather than protecting consumers by maintaining the net the way it's been for the last couple decades.
- TomOfTTB 16y agoTwo points here. = On the floodgates already being opened I'd ask this question: Did the Senate Succeed in blocking Wikileaks? Yes they played bully with a few private companies but in the end they failed because they didn't have the tools to chase Wikileaks to another country. Give the government control over the ISPs and they'll have the tools to block anything on the Internet without having to leave the U.S. to do it. = On the case of Free Markets you have to understand Free Markets never try to protect consumers. That's not the point. The point is to make money. But there's always some corporation that's behind in the market. So companies motivated by greed act in a way that protects consumers in spite of their intentions. Take Net Neutrality. Say AT&T is so dominant in California that they decide to put a surcharge on iTunes purchases. Time Warner who is not dominant then sees an opportunity. By not putting the same surcharge they make MORE MONEY because they'll get an influx of customers from AT&T. Then AT&T has to either ditch the surcharge or lose most of their iTunes buying customers.