Hobbes2 wrote:
So how's NN bad?
by definition - "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites."
Without NN our currently free and open internet would be at the mercy of corporations. And I don't trust the shitty ISPs in the USA to do anything make it worse. Imagine a future where your local ISP makes you purchase a special plan just so you can play video games online, or where if you want to use netflix / hulu / whatever you have to pay a fee for that.
>without NN we would be at the mercy of corporations
And yet there is no evidence to back this up. I would go so far as to say it's nothing but propaganda to further some people's agenda. We didn't even have net neutrality until what, 2009? If we've gone without it for so long there is no reason why the internet would suddenly fall apart without it or that ISPs would start rampantly blocking things. It's the same leftist sophistry that states without government regulation "the corporations would take power", despite it being demonstrable from decades of historical precedent that this isn't the case. It's just left-wing dogma. It's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Just like the same people who want to break apart Amazon because in their mind it's getting too big despite there being no evidence that it's causing any harm. "If it's not broken, don't fix it"
What net neutrality primarily is - it's not about "freedom" or "the consumers" - it's more regulation on ISPs. Regulation is not a good thing; when you restrict the options of the businesses you restrict their ability to innovate - and the consumers suffer. The invisible hand of the free market is already sufficient to ensure that the consumers don't get fucked over; if consumers are so concerned about the principles of net neutrality then it doesn't need to be law, the demand for such a thing will ensure that it is provided by ISPs, otherwise the consumers will go to the competitors that do provide that service. Freedom to innovate is important; no one knows how the internet will evolve, and creating regulations based on a short-sighted and prejudiced view of the industry in the now is almost guaranteed to hamper the industry in the long run. Not to mention that regulation of the internet is a dangerous precedent; various industries are regulated by "industry experts" who goes through the revolving door of industry jobs and governmental positions. In effect what this means is that the same people who work in the big and powerful companies are the same people who're regulating the industry, and as you could guess, they make regulations that force out small competitors in the industry.
If you complain that competition won't work because the internet is a monopoly - or duopoly - why do you think that is? It's because in the first place, the government supported regional monopolies with the idea that competition in such a capital-intensive industry would be bad, and the reason why there is few ISPs in America, as opposed to many other countries which have many ISPs, is that the local governments make it very difficult to build the infrastructure needed to connect homes and regions. ISPs have to get "permission" from local governments, so in effect it's the ISPs with the most political sway and lobbyists groups that get to provide their services. This is the problem with left-wing thinking, the thought that problems caused by governmental interference in the market has to be fixed with yet more regulation, rather than repealing the stuff that's causing the problem. But as always, the prevelent attitude is never a hands-off approach, the mentality is that we must always be doing more, and thus the problem with regulatory creep exists and tens of thousands of pages of regulations are written every year.
>it would be terrible if you had to have a specific plan to do
xWhy? Why is it bad that you should have to pay extra for your connection to be prioritised while people who don't care as much can pay less for a slower connection? That's not bad, it's the most efficient because everyone can pay for the exact service they want. And in the case of particular services paying the ISP for their service to be prioritised, that's not inherently bad either. There are particular services, Telemedicine for example, where connection speed is very important compared to things like internet browsing. However if there is a reason to suspect that the ISPs are using their power to the detriment of the consumer, then there are already laws against that. But the thing is, you have to show it's to the detriment of the consumer, and that's a good thing - you should have to show something is actually bad before you take action against it. If only people followed this general rule instead of acting impulsively on theories without evidence.
Thank you for supporting!
