The Danger In Exempting Wireless From Net Neutrality

nmpost writes "Nearly two years ago, the FCC outlined its rules for net neutrality. Notably absent were rules for wireless networks. There are several legitimate reasons that the same rules applied to wired networks can not apply to wireless networks. However, the same danger lies in leaving wireless networks unguarded against the whims of its administrators. As we move more and more towards a wireless dominated internet, those dangers will become more pronounced. We are going to need a massive investment in infrastructure in this country regardless of net neutrality rules. Demand for wireless is going to continue to grow for many years to come, and providers are not going to be able to let up. Data caps and throttling are understandable now as demand is far outpacing infrastructure growth. Eventually, demand will slow, and these practices will have to be addressed. This is where allowing internet providers to regulate themselves becomes an issue. Self regulation usually does not end well for the consumer. Imagine allowing power plants and oil refineries to determine what chemicals they could pour into the air. Would they have the population's best interest at heart when making that determination? In the future when the infrastructure can match the demand, what will stop internet providers from picking winners and losers over their wireless networks? As conglomerates like Comcast gobble up content providers like NBC, a conflict of interest begins to emerge. There would be nothing from stopping one of the big wireless providers like AT&T or Verizon from scooping up a content provider and prioritizing its data speed over the network."

Comments

Re:Wireless has congestion

[Darkness404]

Here's the great thing about (unregulated) capitalism. It forces businesses to create products and services for people to use or else they lose money or eventually go bankrupt.

The problem with the 2 things you mentioned is that we have regulation, we have a distorted market based on coercion (by the government) rather than freedom. In the case of telecoms, the government gave lots of money to "modernize" America or "modernize" a town meaning that the large telecoms got ahead without concern to their customers. In the case of pharmaceuticals the free market is distorted by both patents and the FDA.

Your line of thinking ignores the key point of the previous poster which was freedom. A more accurate view would be to look at food. If you don't like McDonalds, you don't have to go, you don't have to support them. If you want a burger you can go to the local grocery store (of which there are several) and buy the hamburger yourself and grill it yourself. Or, you can go to Burger King, Wendy's or a multitude of fast food restaurants. If you don't want a fast food burger go to a multitude of sit-down restaurants, diners etc. and get a burger.

What is the difference between the market for burgers and the market for pharmaceuticals and internet? The key difference is freedom. While there might be some patents involved in cooking a burger, most things are simply trade secrets and every restaurant is allowed to try to copy and improve their competitor's recipes. There is comparatively little bureaucracy involved in food service, sure, there are health departments and the FDA to make sure that the food service is sanitary and that the food won't kill you unlike the regulations involved in pharmaceuticals which take potential cures from dying patients because they might not be "effective".