

Can anyone logically refute this article against Net Neutrality regulation? - jlizard
http://hustlebear.com/?p=1184

======
rst
The claim is that ISPs won't see it in their best interest to restrict access
to particular content, or to charge premiums. That's inconsistent with their
observed behavior (e.g., charging extra for mobile phone tethering, even
though shipping packets costs them the same whether or not the phone ships
them three feet further to a laptop). It's also inconsistent with their
expressed desires (viz., for instance, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre whining about
Google and Yahoo wanting to "use [our] pipes free" --- even though the pipes
in question were already paid for by customers who thought they had every
right to use them to access Google content).

For more on the relevant history, I recommend "The Master Switch" by Tim Wu,
or "The Creation of the Media" by Paul Starr.

Cite on the Whitacre quote: [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ip-telephony/how-
google-can-tell-e...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ip-telephony/how-google-can-
tell-ed-whitacre-to-get-lost/949)

------
yequalsx
Right now it might be true that it is in the best interest for ISP to not
restrict access to particular content. This may not be true down the road. It
won't be true if the ISPs form a cartel.

ISPs may decide that it is best to be content with their percent of the market
and instead of competing with each other to gain market share it's better to
nickel and dime consumers.

The cost of legislating net neutrality is quite low and the consequences of
cartel pricing are quite damaging. Therefore it makes sense to regulate now
rather than later.

~~~
anamax
> The cost of legislating net neutrality is quite low and the consequences of
> cartel pricing are quite damaging. Therefore it makes sense to regulate now
> rather than later.

How about some supporting evidence? For example, is it necessarily true that
regulation now will be benign to good as opposed to extremely harmful? Or, are
you suggesting that this is a case that govt will do well? If so, why?

------
jlizard
Both sides say they want to keep the Internet free and open. Which side is
lying?

~~~
spooneybarger
Neither?

It is perfectly reasonable for two people to want the same thing and believe
in entirely different ways of getting there.

