
Matthew Butterick on Net Neutrality - bgrohman
https://tinyletter.com/mbutterick/letters/net-neutrality-neutrality
======
shmerl
_> The popular idea is that it has something to do with, you know, freedom and
democracy and all that._

In practice, it has more to do with anti-trust. But it's clearly related to
Internet freedom as well.

 _> Big Telco must share the costs of carrying all this new traffic._

No, it's about double dipping. ISPs are already charging their own users for
using the network. What they want to do, is to also charge services for
reaching the user (or at least not to have problems with interconnection).
It's a pure troll tax of the type "because we own the bridge". There is no
justification for that.

 _> Today, picking a side in this debate seems like throwing in with one set
of corporate assholes over another. _

_> But if we entrust Big Tech and Big Telco to preserve those virtues, then we
definitely deserve whatever internet we get._

The author contradicts himself. If he doesn't pick the position about Net
neutrality, monopolists will do it for him.

------
orangecat
_Part of what net neutrality ensures is that Big Tech can push as much data
across the internet as it wants; Big Telco has to deliver it._

Ugh. Net neutrality supporters have not done a good job of explaining why this
is not the case. Netflix already pays for all its traffic, and ISPs are
perfectly free to charge subscribers more for higher bandwidth or total
transfers.

