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?'"

Comments

Re:Choices

[thule]

Yes, but the comment said there was a monopoly. In terms of net neutrality that means a person would have to live in a place where a single company controlled the routing of packets. Purchasing a T1 allows the person to make an agreement with an ISP of their choosing. Even though it connects to the phone company, it is the ISP that defines how the packets are treated. Therefore, there is no monopoly, only more expensive options.

Re:Choices

[Ichijo]

Too bad a T1 costs a fortune...

Then split the bandwidth and the bill with your neighbors.

...by the time the same monopoly that gave you crappy Internet service adds their loop charge.

If you don't like the phone company's Internet service, you don't have to choose them to send their bits over your T1 line.