I guess I'm the only one who agrees with Google, AT&T and Verizon here.
Network neutrality, while sounding good in theory, is based on the false assumption that the internet is public property, like broadcast airwaves.
It's not. The internet is a conglomeration of hundreds of private networks, almost all of which are bought and paid for by corporations. These networks don't come cheap. It costs millions of dollars to install the thousands of miles of fiber and purchase the massive routers that make everything work.
Just like you have (or should have) the final say over what content gets moved over your home network that you've bought and paid for, a carrier should have the final say over what gets moved over the network that they've bought and paid for.
Will this bother some people? Probably, but that's why you've got the option to move to other carriers, whose policies you may find less objectionable. Yes, there may be no choice in some places, and perhaps some form of regulation might be appropriate in those locations, but they are really not appropriate when you've got several different companies to choose from. If the masses take their business away from the "bad" carriers and give it to the "good" ones, the profit motive alone will convince the "bad" carriers to improve.
We've already seen this happen in the music business. Record companies started out refusing to permit any on-line distribution. Then customer demand and profit motive (and pressure from illegal file sharing) pushed them to selling songs on-line with DRM. Then additional customer pressure and profit motive pushed them into selling the sounds without DRM. Sure, the resulting system is not perfect, but I think it's a lot better than it would've been had some government agency stepped in and ordered the labels to sell their music on-line without DRM from the get-go.
I don't see the network neutrality issue as any different. If government just keeps out of everybody else's way, we'll end up with a good result. Some carriers may try to be heavy-handed in the short run, but in the long run customer demand and profit motive will pull all of the important players in-line, and without any government agencies getting in the way.
Your making a false assumption. The backbone of the internet IS owned by the public. It was built by the government during the cold war. You're also confusing content with pipe, which is what it's all about. Telecom's also took billions in taxpayer money to build out their networks. At least they promised to. They gave it to their stockholders instead. Had they done the right thing, we wouldn't have having these discussions to begin with. They should have been working on their infrastructure instead of spending millions in Washington to throttle competition and lock everyone into monopolies.
You seem to think that any government regulation is bad. I know millions of people that would like to argue with you. Specifically all of those affected by the economy, brown-outs in California, Cable Company customers paying 400% more than what they did before deregulation.
I don't want my internet provider choosing which content I see. I'm not interested in their opinion of what I should and shouldn't see. I have my own, thank you very much. Without net neutrality, they could legally push their own content, while throttling a competitors. If they don't have the capacity, then DON"T SELL IT.
Comments
I guess I'm the only one who agrees with Google, AT&T and Verizon here.
Network neutrality, while sounding good in theory, is based on the false assumption that the internet is public property, like broadcast airwaves.
It's not. The internet is a conglomeration of hundreds of private networks, almost all of which are bought and paid for by corporations. These networks don't come cheap. It costs millions of dollars to install the thousands of miles of fiber and purchase the massive routers that make everything work.
Just like you have (or should have) the final say over what content gets moved over your home network that you've bought and paid for, a carrier should have the final say over what gets moved over the network that they've bought and paid for.
Will this bother some people? Probably, but that's why you've got the option to move to other carriers, whose policies you may find less objectionable. Yes, there may be no choice in some places, and perhaps some form of regulation might be appropriate in those locations, but they are really not appropriate when you've got several different companies to choose from. If the masses take their business away from the "bad" carriers and give it to the "good" ones, the profit motive alone will convince the "bad" carriers to improve.
We've already seen this happen in the music business. Record companies started out refusing to permit any on-line distribution. Then customer demand and profit motive (and pressure from illegal file sharing) pushed them to selling songs on-line with DRM. Then additional customer pressure and profit motive pushed them into selling the sounds without DRM. Sure, the resulting system is not perfect, but I think it's a lot better than it would've been had some government agency stepped in and ordered the labels to sell their music on-line without DRM from the get-go.
I don't see the network neutrality issue as any different. If government just keeps out of everybody else's way, we'll end up with a good result. Some carriers may try to be heavy-handed in the short run, but in the long run customer demand and profit motive will pull all of the important players in-line, and without any government agencies getting in the way.
Your making a false assumption. The backbone of the internet IS owned by the public. It was built by the government during the cold war. You're also confusing content with pipe, which is what it's all about. Telecom's also took billions in taxpayer money to build out their networks. At least they promised to. They gave it to their stockholders instead. Had they done the right thing, we wouldn't have having these discussions to begin with. They should have been working on their infrastructure instead of spending millions in Washington to throttle competition and lock everyone into monopolies.
You seem to think that any government regulation is bad. I know millions of people that would like to argue with you. Specifically all of those affected by the economy, brown-outs in California, Cable Company customers paying 400% more than what they did before deregulation.
I don't want my internet provider choosing which content I see. I'm not interested in their opinion of what I should and shouldn't see. I have my own, thank you very much. Without net neutrality, they could legally push their own content, while throttling a competitors. If they don't have the capacity, then DON"T SELL IT.
Free market isn't always the right answer.