
Ask HN: What are the strongest arguments *against* Net Neutrality? - leifaffles
Proponents of Net Neutrality: What do your <i>best</i> and <i>strongest</i> critics say and where are they mistaken?<p>Opponents of Net Neutrality: What are the <i>best</i> and <i>strongest</i> arguments against Net Neutrality.
======
mtmail
See also "Ask HN: What is the “other side” of the Net Neutrality argument?"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15751789](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15751789)
from 5 days ago

------
miguelrochefort
The claim that "all bits are the same" is absolutely insane.

I do not want to pay the same rate when I'm downloading system updates or
uploading a backup vs when I stream real-time video chat or work via remote
desktop. In one case latency is irrelevant while in the other it's everything.
It's important for ISPs to differentiate these bits and prioritize them
accordingly.

Net Neutrality also raises the barrier to entry for new ISPs, which solidifies
existing monopolies. A new mobile ISP that lacks the infrastructure to support
video streaming won't be allowed to enter the market as they're obligated to
serve the entire internet.

Cable providers won't have any incentive to offer channels over the internet
as their users will have to pay extra (for the internet bandwidth it uses)
when there used to be no limit (on cable). ISPs will likely have to invest in
unregulated side-channels for distributing their content, increasing
technology fragmentation.

~~~
lordCarbonFiber
You really shouldn't be posting this FUD even as a devil's advocate.

You _don 't_ (and hopefully should never) pay by the bit. The marginal cost of
sending bits (any bit) is 0; the ISPs know this but would love to resurrect
the SMS gravy train of charging for things that are free. Any packet
inspection necessary to provide a non NN internet is only going to increase
latency not lead to any measurable improvement to quality at the consumer end.

