It's a welcome move but feels mostly symbolic if the article is taken literally. The "end users" don't typically pay directly, they pay indirectly as the services they use and pay for (say Netflix), have to pay the additional costs and that cost is passed invisibly onto the end users when they pay for non-ISP services.
This has been true so far in the US, but there are countries where ISPs transparently provide different bandwidths to different types of content, and customers pick and choose service plans for each in a package deal.
The transparency might be ok to choose among service plans of a single ISP, but I suspect those other countries have a fundamental underlying commonality that most US markets are missing. Their markets are structured via regulation, or just happen to be currently constructed, with multiple ISP competing for the business of the end user.
It'd be funny if all these state governments end up having trouble getting internet.
Let's say Comcast & all the others violate net neutrality in some small ways. (I.e. A plan where you normally have 100mbps, but youtube can go faster because their servers are well-spliced with the internet backbone. That's a thing that violated net neutrality.) And then-- well hey, they're violating it. And most other businesses end up violating NN because of other optimizations to delivering internet content.
As a cynical libertarian, I love this. There's the potential for state government to lose internet access. That would be _so good_.
Excessive government interference in the establishment of Internet infrastructure is what created the ISP monopolies we have today, it surprises me that a libertarian would be pleased to see those government-enabled monopolies completely eliminate consumer choice. If the establishment of those ISPs had played by free market rules and had to pay for their own infrastructure, we would likely have an actual free market and actual choice, and no need for net neutrality regulation in the first place. Multiple ISPs, each in different parts of the city with overlapping coverage, and all too afraid of each other to step on the consumer like this.
But now that the government created a situation where most of us only have one choice in ISP thanks to using taxpayer money to build all but the last mile and refusing to let smaller players in... Now you want the regulation to end? Huh.
Strawman harder! I want the government-granted local monopolies to be ended too.
The risk I'm avoiding is not "slightly worse consumer product". The risk I'm hoping to avoid by lobbying for anti-NN is China/Singapore/German-style censorship.
I should have read your comment in a more favorable light, as the community guidelines say, so I apologize for that. I admit the image of the government sawing off the only branch it’s standing on with regulation is humorous.
Obviously preventing speeding up video delivery with no negative impact to quality is not the intent of Net Neutrality. The intent also, however, is not to prevent “a slightly worse consumer product”. Corporate censorship of the Internet for financial gain could do as much damage as government censorship for political gain. But the common element in both cases is one party having too much control because they’re the only game in town. And the people pushing for “public Internet” absolutely terrify me.
That said, I don’t think preventing title II government regulation of the Internet would prevent government censorship of it. I’d remind you how willingly companies like AT&T worked with the NSA to enable their wiretapping in the early stages of PRISM. They gave them a freaking secret wiretapping room in their building with a fiber optic splitter. Why would we think they wouldn’t be just as compliant with government censorship under similar threats or incentives?
I have hopes for mesh Internet providers to solve all of this. Competition is the only answer I see, and I think our philosophies align there at least.
8 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 35.7 ms ] threadLet's say Comcast & all the others violate net neutrality in some small ways. (I.e. A plan where you normally have 100mbps, but youtube can go faster because their servers are well-spliced with the internet backbone. That's a thing that violated net neutrality.) And then-- well hey, they're violating it. And most other businesses end up violating NN because of other optimizations to delivering internet content.
As a cynical libertarian, I love this. There's the potential for state government to lose internet access. That would be _so good_.
But now that the government created a situation where most of us only have one choice in ISP thanks to using taxpayer money to build all but the last mile and refusing to let smaller players in... Now you want the regulation to end? Huh.
The risk I'm avoiding is not "slightly worse consumer product". The risk I'm hoping to avoid by lobbying for anti-NN is China/Singapore/German-style censorship.
Obviously preventing speeding up video delivery with no negative impact to quality is not the intent of Net Neutrality. The intent also, however, is not to prevent “a slightly worse consumer product”. Corporate censorship of the Internet for financial gain could do as much damage as government censorship for political gain. But the common element in both cases is one party having too much control because they’re the only game in town. And the people pushing for “public Internet” absolutely terrify me.
That said, I don’t think preventing title II government regulation of the Internet would prevent government censorship of it. I’d remind you how willingly companies like AT&T worked with the NSA to enable their wiretapping in the early stages of PRISM. They gave them a freaking secret wiretapping room in their building with a fiber optic splitter. Why would we think they wouldn’t be just as compliant with government censorship under similar threats or incentives?
I have hopes for mesh Internet providers to solve all of this. Competition is the only answer I see, and I think our philosophies align there at least.