
How Net Neutrality Hurts the Poor - luu
http://theumlaut.com/2014/04/30/how-net-neutrality-hurts-the-poor/
======
maxsilver
This article makes the assumption that when Comcast breaks net neutrality, all
they're doing is providing "low quality" internet. That's true, but that's not
really the problem. Comcast being "low quality" isn't the issue -- they've
always been low quality, net neutrality doesn't change that.

The problem is that Comcast has a monopoly over the service.

The article assumes "high quality" is some sort of choice that people can
make. This is true in scotch or automobiles (as the author describes). This is
not true in internet service, Comcast has a complete monopoly over the vast
majority of the nation.

An "optimal" part of stock is low quality stock, this is true. But a "mid
quality" and "high quality" choice is _also_ an optimal part of stock. Comcast
is effectively mandating that every man, woman, and child in the country
_must_ pay for a "high quality" option, but only receive their "low quality"
option.

Surely, even the author should understand the difference here.

------
cordite
I feel like the author confuses efforts to gain adoption by subsidizing the
costs voluntarily, and the situation Comcast applies to those like Netflix.

I do not see net neutrality being an enforcement that states CDNs and such
can't make more optimal network paths of their own free will.

------
ThrustVectoring
It's rather disingenuous to not mention the real problems of network non-
neutrality. Specifically, rent extraction by those who have a privileged
market position.

------
justsomeguynpdx
I stopped reading after encountering the word "neutralistas."

------
angersock
_As if it weren’t enough to connect the world’s poorest for the first time,
non-neutrality can also help to fund necessary network buildouts on an ongoing
basis_

That's not how that works out at all. What a load of rubbish.

