To me Net Neutrality is a needed regulation that forces telco ops to compete on telco stuff. In that framework it's a free market competition and it does bring prices down as well as allows additional players to enter the game on ground unbiased by deep pocketed content production, which is a venue in direct conflict of interest with the telco (i.e be a pipe) side of things.
Agreed, I was merely outlining the opposite side argument in a very concise way so that it's immediately obvious how much broken it is.
> It does not hamper free market competition, it protects human beings from monopolies and cartels and sets up the legal framework within which the free market is allowed to operate.
This is precisely my opinion, as stated in my second paragraph.
That is so clearly not the case with this specific regulation, that your conclusion is total nonsense.
Net Neutrality is a term describing a necessary quality for the internet to have in order to be a free market.
Net Neutrality regulation is necessary because ISPs do not have competition to prevent them from breaking that.
Net Neutrality regulation requires ISPs to keep a few records, costing them a tiny amount, which is totally reasonable, and will not hamper the free market in any way.
Just to be clear, the first sentence is not my argument, and not my point of view at all: I was merely stating in a very clear way the (flawed) chain of reasoning people in favour of killing net neutrality put forward, which makes it all the more obvious how much nonsensical it is.
If you (re)read my second paragraph you will notice that it exactly states your last three sentences, and that we definitely agree.
Ask them what it will do and it turns out that it will fix every problem you don't like about your ISP. They charge too much? Fixed. They throttle bittorrent? Fixed. Poor service? Fixed. Too slow? Too much latency?
And beauty of it is that when it's been effect for 20 years and I look around and all those things still happen ... well, imagine how bad it would have been without Net Neutrality.
Frankly I think for most people this is just a political chip. We want this because the other guys don't and vice versa. When we get this win we hurt the people who support so many other things that we don't like. The weird thing is that the logic of thought is perfectly reasonable.
The only bandwagon I see is the one in opposition to net neutrality regulation. It's a bandwagon against any and all regulation, as if the word "regulation" suddenly makes something malicious.
The rest of us actually considered the details and implications, or trusted someone else who did.
If anything it makes it even worse, where prioritizing one type of data has an even bigger impact and can quickly cement the presence of companies such as facebook and obliterate any competitors.
Not At all? Are you sure? Ever tried to use video streaming services when your bandwidth is capped at 10 Gb per month?
> Ever tried to use video streaming services when your bandwidth is capped at 10 Gb per month?
That's the whole point. You can't. But hey, lucky for you your ISP has partnered up with netflix, and thus netflix streaming doesn't count towards that data cap. Awesome huh?
Most customers will think so. But in reality it's nothing but a death blow to all of netflix competitors.
Go read about it, as there is more than plenty, readily available on the subject.
The only cost associated with net neutrality regulation is a minimal bookkeeping one.
The only cost associated with net neutrality itself is the potential cost for consumers without it.
If so, you are misunderstanding what Net Neutrality is.
Go read about it, as there is more than plenty, readily available on the subject.