The Case Against Net Neutrality
jeek writes "While I certainly don't agree with it, this article tries to make the case that Net Neutrality may actually be bad for America. From the article: 'If the government regulates net neutrality, policies for internet access are set by one entity: the FCC. However, if the government stays out, each company will set its own policies. If you don’t like the FCC’s policies, you are stuck with them unless you leave the United States. If you don’t like your internet service provider’s policies, you can simply switch to another one. So which model sounds better to you?'"
Wasn't the main problem that there are still few ISP choices in a lot of places? At least, based on numerous anecdotes I hear.
If you don’t like your internet service provider’s policies, you can simply switch to another one.
Not quite. For most Americans, there aren't more than a couple of ISPs available (excluding Satellite and ye olde dialup modem), so you really can't. Where I live, the only available broadband has been Verizon DSL, from 2003 up until 2010, so if they had decided to start throttling bandwidth to unapproved sites, I would've been screwed.
You're joking, right? Hard to tell here sometimes.
When the coal industry self-regulates, all coal mines are operated under horrible operating conditions, so your only choice is still the manure farm. The self-regulation model only works if the mines are run by perfectly market-rational individuals, and if there are no practical entry barriers to starting new mining companies. Neither is the case.
Congratulations. You are an anomaly. The vast majority of people have access to only one or two ISPs. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/national-broadband-plan-arrives-quoting-shakespeare.ars