
Net Neutrality is not a good thing. It’s not an evil thing, either - joeyclover
https://medium.com/@joey.clover/net-neutrality-is-not-a-good-thing-its-not-a-bad-thing-either-51a9d6baf92c
======
mtgx
Net neutrality is a _necessary thing_ in the context of lack of local
competition. But ISPs want their cake and eat it, too: keep their monopolies
without any rules putting restrictions on them. Because of course they do -
that's what all monopolists desire: free unchallenged reign.

If the "small government party" were true to its words, it would eliminate net
neutrality, but it would also open-up Comcast and AT&T's cables to
competitors, and get those two to license their cables under fair FRAND-
like/near-cost license fees.

The big ISPs would also not be able to force rules on how the smaller ISPs use
their internet. So if Comcast wants to block torrents, it may do so for its
own service, but it can't demand, nor encourage the smaller ISPs to do the
same.

------
chrisbennet
The author's example where the wireless ISP's throttling of Facetime was
corrected buy market forces doesn't apply to hard wired, monopoly ISPs. If
Comcast throttle or effectively blocks [1] my Hacker News access, I have no
alternative. There are no market forces to address this situation.

[1] Affectively blocking my access might look like "your cable package
includes 'free' access to Comcast Movies and Comcast Search but you have to
pay extra for access to Netflix and Google."

