Net Neutrality Is Far from Necessary

Whether it is necessary is a political discussion.

The difference may or may not result in a peak performing market.

The idea it should completely ignores ordinary people and many of them will find that offensive.

Oh look, an Econ professor doesn’t understand technology or real markets and can’t even make a point in his essay.

Maybe that’s why Clemson’s Econ program isn’t even in the top 50…

The whole article hinges upon this sub-title,

> Remember, the "open internet" that regulatory rules purportedly preserve emerged from a world without net neutrality rules.

But ahh if you actually look at what it was that emerged that world it was a bunch of data-center operators quietly interconnecting to each other without asking for permission. It was an inherently anti-capitalist pro-connectivity pro-inter-networking viewpoint, that ardently vocally did what it thought it was best: connect. Because. Because it was the right thing to do.

Net Neutrality is almost assuredly 100% necessary, completely necessary, now that pro-humanity cabals no longer shape how networks forms. That boon is over. The do-gooders still have presence, that's still the core heart & soul of internet exchanges, but to no where near the extensive degree of influence they had. Darkness & vile means of control enroach from many points. Net Neutrality is seemingly the one sane coherent principle that can keep the board from becoming ever more lopsided to those who have. Those who would, on the internet deserve a chance, but unless network neutrality is defended, unless we can see what a dumb pipe situation we have, the whole enterprise is at risk.