
Internet access: Gordian net - ghosh
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21641201-why-network-neutrality-such-intractable-problemand-how-solve-it-gordian-net?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/gordiannet
======
mlghkavf0
The narrative that "the internet [is] becoming more crowded" is a gimmick to
raise fees. I'm already paying for the capacity I expect to use. My fees
should be applied to upgrade capacity. If that model isn't sustainable, there
is no business. Microsoft doesn't get to send me a bill for buying the console
(hypothetically low margin), but no games (higher margin).

Differently: I pay X dollars per month for a maximum rate. Somewhere along the
lines, people (who didn't want to upgrade their networks) started talking
about "toll booths", and "bandwidth hogs", saying that there are "capacity"
problems, implicitly requiring that my maximum rate for a month - which I can
compare easily to alternative providers - be turned into a maximum rate (...
based on a model business person, or senior, who checks email twice a week, or
some other idealized average subscriber). It was a grift to turn a fungible
commodity into a value-added, highly tiered, set of offerings (which I can't
differentiate between readily, and so am less able to switch providers), but
with larger margins. In short, it's not a surprise to see network neutrality
dismantled now that this billing model is completely swallowed.

------
sandstrom
I agree with "More providers, fewer rules".

However, it seems like sticking a "common carriage" rule in there would be a
good idea. Especially for the 75% of US households who won't have a perfectly
competitive market to turn to in the next few years.

