
The Downside of Net Neutrality - jt93
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-downside-of-net-neutrality/
======
StanislavPetrov
This whole fallacious argument is riddled with strawmen and fallacious
arguments. They attempt to equate wireless access with internet access. They
talk about "the expectations that we have as consumers" when it comes to the
internet as if "consumers" are some sort of monolith. Worst of all, they
describe net neutrality solely as a bandwith issue and not one of access.
Without net neutrality laws Comcast and other ISPs are under no obligation to
make all of the "internet" available to you, at any price. Then will be free
to simply block access to websites and other internet services they don't
like, for any reason at all, no matter how much you are willing to pay. Net
neutrality isn't just about bandwith and packet prioritization - its about
access. There is simply no "free market" argument to be made about any ISP or
cable company that doesn't own all its infrastructure (including all the land
that its wires and cables run through) or one that uses the public spectrum.
The only reason that the cable company is able to put a pole in my backyard or
run a wire over my property is government regulation. You can't credibly decry
net neutrality (ie government regulation of your "private business"), when the
very existence of your "private business" depends on government regulation to
operate.

~~~
fwn
> You can't credibly decry net neutrality (ie government regulation of your
> "private business"), when the very existence of your "private business"
> depends on government regulation to operate.

Not sure what is meant by this. Maybe this holds true for some moral
arguments, but I'm not sure on that either, as fundamental institutions like
property rights and contract law are often provided by governments as well.

Most arguments in favor of market based solutions are not moral but practical
(efficiency etc.) And of course, you would frequently argue in favor of market
mechanisms in highly regulated and/or government rich fields. (Look at
banking, healthcare, research, etc.)

There's even a lot of practical benefits in competition between bureaucracies
which (at least in the EU) are completely government determined.

Long story short: in the academic discourse, market and government are no
opposites, complements, enemies or anything necessarily averse.

------
bbatha
The former net neutrality laws did not apply to wireless. I personally believe
they should but there is a strong technical argument why they shouldn’t, as
presented here. Additionally there’s for more competition for wireless
networks. Most US residents have a choice between 2-4 networks, thus keeping
the worst practices in check.

------
nitwit005
> When we apply net neutrality principles of the 2015 regulatory framework to
> wireless networks, such proposed equal treatment of all network traffic
> could have the unintended effect of interfering with the quality of our
> communications

Choosing to bash an imaginary law instead of a real one, but not being
particularly clear about that.

------
Terr_
This seems like a false-dilemma.

The real value in network neutrality is that companies cannot discriminate
based on the human-understood message of the data (e.g. political censorship)
or to use it anti-competitively.

Now, QoS is not _entirely_ orthogonal to that, but most of the worrisome
overlap involves the case where the ISP's _motive_ isn't too maximize customer
experience, but instead to impede a competitor.

The line may not be super-sharp, but it does exist.

------
ouid
Packet prioritization for "phone" communications is actually an obvious
example of a conflict of interest for ISPs, since they are the ones
benefitting from that. VOIP services can't compete because the ISPs don't
allow them to.

