arstechnica.com — A critic of net neutrality and open access says that the movement is anti-property and "communal." But that ignores why net neutrality is gaining strength: we want more control over our own property, thanks.
Feb 4, 2008 View in Crawl 4
jdeppFeb 4, 2008
Suppose the post-office levied a surcharge on the doorstep to deliver you a package from company A (not an affiliate of the post-office) while they provided with you free delivery for the identical package from company B (their preferred package supplier).Suppose the bank elected to revalue dollars from company A at $.90, so that every time company A made a transaction, they had to either take a loss or increase their prices to compensate, while company B was allowed the usual rate of $1 = $1.That's what net neutrality is about. There's no problem in charging based on the number of packages / packets you send over the internet, but varying the price based on who's using the system and what they're sending is a problem, because it's an artificial, arbitrary charge that the network operators can use to force people out of business. It's short sighted to build a system that is deliberately capricious, because the system is less useful and will be used less.
geekeeFeb 4, 2008
BS. net neutrality advocates won't let telecom companies charge more for priority packets.
jofukiaFeb 5, 2008
I tend to favor net-neutrality. I'd also point out that a real free market does not exist naturally, if I can go beat up all my competitors I'll soon have a very profitable business regardless of how good or bad my services are. You need some sort of policing to ensure that the playing field is fair, that everybody can enter and participate in the market unhindered. You need protection of property and safety of participants. This is also why whoever does the policing cannot be a player in the market.Net-neutrality just seems to be one of those measures that can help to keep the playing field fair.
tech42erFeb 5, 2008
You realize the reason there's only one brand of condom in most areas is because the government is enforcing local condom monopolies, right? If there was a real free market, we'd see tons of different kinds of condoms from many different brands.
tech42erFeb 5, 2008
Bulls**t. The Internet is so important it must be government-controlled. That's what they said about the postal system and the transit system and the telephone network. How did that turn out? THe "too important" argument is simply wrong. A free market will work in all industries.
tech42erFeb 5, 2008
You don't need economic policing. If you were to literally beat up (i.e. physically assault) your competitors, you would be arrested in a minarchy (what the US should be in theory) and punished by the private organization that polices your market in an anarchy.
tech42erFeb 5, 2008
He was being sarcastic. No one in their right mind trusts the government.
jeremycobertFeb 5, 2008
remember when the telephone industry was regulated by the government ? it was awesome, you could not buy extra phones unless it was through Bell. answering machines were not allowed, call waiting was for business or rich people... it was a good time ! yeah , i cant see any problems with regulating the internet..... never willingly give the government more power as you will never get it back.
logandurandMar 8, 2008
You make a good point, MWeather, but I believe that the problems are caused by the regulation, in which local governments grant monopolies to a single company.