The author's example where the wireless ISP's throttling of Facetime was corrected buy market forces doesn't apply to hard wired, monopoly ISPs. If Comcast throttle or effectively blocks [1] my Hacker News access, I have no alternative. There are no market forces to address this situation.
[1] Affectively blocking my access might look like "your cable package includes 'free' access to Comcast Movies and Comcast Search but you have to pay extra for access to Netflix and Google."
Net neutrality is a necessary thing in the context of lack of local competition. But ISPs want their cake and eat it, too: keep their monopolies without any rules putting restrictions on them. Because of course they do - that's what all monopolists desire: free unchallenged reign.
If the "small government party" were true to its words, it would eliminate net neutrality, but it would also open-up Comcast and AT&T's cables to competitors, and get those two to license their cables under fair FRAND-like/near-cost license fees.
The big ISPs would also not be able to force rules on how the smaller ISPs use their internet. So if Comcast wants to block torrents, it may do so for its own service, but it can't demand, nor encourage the smaller ISPs to do the same.
2 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 13.0 ms ] thread[1] Affectively blocking my access might look like "your cable package includes 'free' access to Comcast Movies and Comcast Search but you have to pay extra for access to Netflix and Google."
If the "small government party" were true to its words, it would eliminate net neutrality, but it would also open-up Comcast and AT&T's cables to competitors, and get those two to license their cables under fair FRAND-like/near-cost license fees.
The big ISPs would also not be able to force rules on how the smaller ISPs use their internet. So if Comcast wants to block torrents, it may do so for its own service, but it can't demand, nor encourage the smaller ISPs to do the same.