Hacker News Reader

Comment by miguelrochefort | Hacker News Reader

I recognize that net neutrality makes sense when the infrastructure is regulated, funded or subsidized with public money. Perhaps that's true in most places and that's why so many people believe it's a necessity. I can understand that.

Let's imagine a different scenario. I put a satellite in orbit and offer internet access to people. No government subsidies, no monopoly. Should I be free to discriminate and only offer the websites I want?

View on HN

Is your satellite the only source of internet access for a given region? Are you going to actively lobby and sue to prevent municipalities and other companies from building their own competing satellites?

If the answer to both of those is no then sure, discriminate away! If people don't like your offerings they can go elsewhere, or can build their own. But the big ISPs, at least here in America, would answer "yes" to both and have long, well-documented histories to that effect.

Is the goal net neutrality or is the goal to get rid of ISP monopolies?

The goal is net neutrality. However at present the ISP monopolies are abusing their position to prevent it so that they remain free from regulation and have captive markets to exploit. Given their legally binding fiduciary duty to their shareholders and the current lack of competition, we can hardly expect different behavior from them. Either we need an infusion of competition, or we force them to "play nice" as justified by their position. At present either option requires some form of governmental regulation aka net neutrality.

That's a bit like comparing a water utility company versus a company selling bottled water. One has a natural monopoly (and likely only exists thanks to generous government support), the other does not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com