Here is one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/11/13/net-n...
I don't agree with a few things the author says, but I agree with the overall sentiment of resenting government interference in private business.
I don't agree with a few things the author says, but I agree with the overall sentiment of resenting government interference in private business.
Let's compare the Internet to a highway system, since that's the analogy politicians like. The Internet is all private roads. You pay your ISP for your road so that any traffic serving you can come across in either direction. I pay my ISP for any traffic serving me to come across in either direction.
Net neutrality says that if you and I send traffic to one another, your ISP can't charge me for my packets (trucks) carrying data (cargo) to you because you've already paid for use of the road. They also can't charge you more for a truck entering your road from my road than from their own other road, or from Google's road. It's all the same toll (or all included if you have an unlimited traffic plan) and you pay the same for your leg of the trip no matter how the truck got to your road.
Anti-net-neutrality folks think the government should grant the folks running the private toll roads we rent the right to waive tolls on those roads if they have a business relationship with one of the parties. They think the toll road operators should be able to charge you more rent or higher tolls if you do business with someone whose cargo came from a competitor's road to get to your section of road. At the same time, they say it's fine that the government itself has severely limited your choice in local road providers giving you no power to negotiate or find a suitable competitive road provider.
Then anti-neutrality folks call that an open, free market. Free for whom? Open for whom? Your state tells you who can install a road without a fair bidding process, that whoever installed the wholesale road doesn't need to allow a competitive resale market for retail use of the road, that you can't individually negotiate terms with the road operator, and that you can't build your own road to replace it. Now the federal government wants to tell you that the road operator under those terms set by your state can shut out cargo from its roads or charge huge surcharges based on who you bought the cargo from. What's free and open about that?
Net neutrality has no business dictating how an ISP wants to conduct business and what pricing structure it wants. If you or me don't like our ISP's prices, we can switch.
> At the same time, they say it's fine that the government itself has severely limited your choice in local road providers giving you no power to negotiate or find a suitable competitive road provider.
This is the real problem that has led to this issue. Instead of treating the symptoms, the government must ensure that there is healthy competition and customers are able to choose from multiple ISPs. We got to this place because the government granted some companies a defacto monopoly. That must be undone. Net neutrality is trying to solve the bad effects of government overreach with even more regulation!
Lastly, I see many people on hn and reddit implying that NN is an open and shut issue. That any sane person is obviously pro-NN and anybody who speaks against it is either dumb or evil. This is an absolutely wrong position to take. It fosters no real discussion and results in name-calling while politicians muck up the real problem even more. Thank you for being open to discussion.
Hah.
> Instead of treating the symptoms, the government must ensure that there is healthy competition and customers are able to choose from multiple ISPs. We got to this place because the government granted some companies a defacto monopoly. That must be undone. Net neutrality is trying to solve the bad effects of government overreach with even more regulation!
The net neutrality regulation is to mitigate a symptom. However, it is difficult for the federal government to override what state and local governments have done with franchise fees and line-run regulations. In order to claim authority to undo the disease, the federal government would need to reclassify Internet access as an interstate utility the states have no right to limit as they have. Net neutrality is a much lighter touch when it comes to the federal government overriding state regulations than telling the states who can dig where or who can run overhead lines.