Most rights are a balancing act. In this case, the freedom of the ISP is contrary to the freedom of the subscriber, so whose freedom is supreme?
I could understand opposition to net neutrality if there were competition in the ISP market. However, I have no choice but to use Comcast, so the idea that they can decide what sites I visit and how fast they are is very scary.
Bullshit. The "freedom" of the subscriber is not on the line. The subscriber can do as they wish. I can't go into a hotel and claim I have the "freedom" to use my room as a distillery just because I paid for the room.
The ISP can also regulate bandwidth as they wish. They're a company, not a public organization (depending on where you live). If you don't like it, choose another ISP. If you can't choose another ISP, work to change the situation so you can.
I'd rather get people pissed off enough at the current monopolistic ISP situation to change it rather than keep the situation at just the right place that no one is happy.
So... I'm supposed to move to another city, maybe even state, in order to place competitive pressure on my ISP?
Of course you mentioned the monopolistic ISP situation that creates that problem, but that seems to just be handwaving; I don't think you can point to angry consumers as a solution without explaining what exactly you think those angry consumers under a monopoly can possibly do to improve their situation without government intervention akin to the current FCC neutrality arrangement.
Agreed totally, except for the order of what should happen. The monopolies, which are usually granted by agreements with local governments, should end first.
How do you propose to distribute access to fiber networks laid in public land, then? Are the new competitors in these markets going to make individual contracts with every property owner they come in contact with, too?
I don't know .. that's something to be debated, however it does impinge on my individual freedom if my government decides who can wire what to my house. I did not personally agree to grant any corporation such a right.
Until then, arguments that net neutrality violates the freedom of the ISPs don't hold up, as any state-enforced monopolies must be considered at least partially public property.
It's something that has been debated. Do you think telecoms and utilities sprang into existence fully-formed world-wide the day you were born? These issues are not new, they date back centuries.
I don't. Neither, I'd wager, does djur, who you initially replied to. You should read his other posts in this thread.
He and I are both speaking of the practical problems of the mentality that governments shouldn't be involved at all, not arguing that telecom monopolies are a good thing.
You can't have a practical system of utilities of any sort without government involvement. That doesn't mean you have to have government-granted monopolies to nominally private companies. There are other options, like having the core utilities (e.g. fiber) be a public utility to begin with.
That analogy is not at all applicable. It would be more like you rented a hotel room over the phone, but when you show up to check in, they say "Oh, you are black. Sorry, we can't give you that room, but we have a smaller one in the basement".
Net neutrality means that it does not matter what kind of car you have, you are allowed to drive on the highway. No one is going to say, oh you are not driving a domestic sedan, sorry you have to drive over there in the slow lane.
Lack of net neutrality goes directly against entrepreneurship. Any Joe Blow can buy bandwidth, build a server and start offering service online and compete against anyone and often times successfully. But without net neutrality, telco has the power to kill your business, by throttling access to it (which is esp. important in the early stages of your business). In fact your competitors can pay the telco to throttle you (why not? it may be cheaper than competing with you).
It is also extremely easy to kill access to dissenting views, blogs, news sources etc. This all rides on net neutrality.
so you say people will work to lay fiber everywhere til they can have a neutral internet?
Oh yeah, right, that'll happen because it's totally possible!
Freedom of saying this ain't right. Freedom of making laws against it. Freedom to steal. Freedom to pirate servers. Extend the thinking far enough til you get to freedom to kill people. Exactly the same thinking.
This circular argument is useless. Freedom without means to limit and enforce it is no freedom at all.
It's obvious that for the general good, there should be net neutrality. If you make it impossible (laying fiber in all the country from scratch is impossible), this is wrong.
It's not just the freedom of the subscriber: it's the freedom of startup founders who need a way for users to reach their sites. Suppose Comcast et al. had been able to decide that, say, Dropbox was "competing" with their own offerings of file space to subscribers, and either blocked or throttled access to dropbox.com, so subscribers couldn't even go there to view the "about" page without a lot of hassle (if at all)?
I agree with you on principle, if there was a free market for providing internet services. However, this is totally not the case .. ISPs gain local monopolies by virtue of agreements with local governments.
For example, Verizon struck a deal to provide fiber access a few years ago with my parents' hometown. Part of this deal was that no other provider could do the same.
This impinges on the subscriber's freedom to leave for another provider, so your argument falls flat, unless you are ready to invalidate all such agreements with local governments.
The government of the United States has the authority and the responsibility to regulate the commercial use of limited resources held in common. The freedom at stake here is the right of the people to regulate the use of public property.
Provider already has that freedom. But once I buy my bandwidth for what ever price the telco is selling, net neutrality guarantees that every packet of information I send is routed all the way to its destination as equal with anybody else's (i.e. telco's are neutral and don't prefer anyone's packets).
But without net neutrality, your provider may decide they don't like your packets going to Youtube esp. since they are also selling TV cable service. So they are now allowed to slow down your traffic to Youtube.
I could understand opposition to net neutrality if there were competition in the ISP market. However, I have no choice but to use Comcast, so the idea that they can decide what sites I visit and how fast they are is very scary.