Net Neutrality Day

[kkt]

The concept that the internet is a "utility" is just wrong.   It is a luxury, and should be treated as a luxury item.   You can live just fine w/o it.   It is no more a "utility" than a bookshop, or a baseball park, or a car dealer.

If one ISP provides poor customer service, another will provide better.  The magic of the free market.  IMHO, in 10 years internet access will be free anyway.

Let's extend this logic:

You can live just fine without electricity, just light a candle, you'll be fine.

You can live just fine without government provided water, just pump your own water, you'll be fine.

You can live just fine without indoor plumbing, just build yourself an outhouse, you'll be fine.

The internet is as much as necessity for modern existence (for reasons outlined above) as the utilities I just mentioned.

Not even close. Heck, there are still many people that live in areas without internet access.

Sure.  There are off-grid people with no electricity, just their own well water, and an outhouse.  Even worse if you look to 3rd world countries.  Does that mean they're not necessities in industrialized countries?

[Thing 342]

Now taking bets on how many pages til this topic gets locked. 2? 3?

[Rothman]

Can't believe there are consumers that are for it.  "Sure, let me be led to the bigger sites for more money..."

[US71]

Now taking bets on how many pages til this topic gets locked. 2? 3?

Depends on how civil everyone is.

[Otto Yamamoto]

The concept that the internet is a "utility" is just wrong.   It is a luxury, and should be treated as a luxury item.   You can live just fine w/o it.   It is no more a "utility" than a bookshop, or a baseball park, or a car dealer.

If one ISP provides poor customer service, another will provide better.  The magic of the free market.  IMHO, in 10 years internet access will be free anyway.

Internet access is pretty much a necessity now.  Want to apply for a job, order those goods and services that have disappeared from brick and mortar stores (or your brick and mortar store has disappeared itself), get tax forms and info, without the internet it's all much harder or impossible.

Net neutrality isn't just about speed.  Without net neutrality, there's nothing stopping them being selective about content.  Would you like your phone company to refuse to connect phones at the offices of one political group?  They can't, because they are a common carrier and obliged to be neutral about access to phone service.  Internet access should be the same.

This is absolutely true. I just got a new job, because my resume is on the net. The Nursing home didn't run any ads in the paper, it was strictly on the web, and they went for the resumes they liked best.

STV100-2

[AlexandriaVA]

I find myself favoring a regulated environment (some form of net neutrality) largely because I look to historic examples in America of what's worked and what hasn't with utilities, specifically railroads and highways.

As I recall, the US government regulated railroads via the Interstate Commerce Commission because railroads were giving favorable rates and schedules to preferred vendors along routes in which they had a monopoly or effective monopoly. I think utility analysis along these lines is the best way to view the issue.

I think road analogies could be useful here. I see net neutrality as a toll road where a private vendor charges the same rates to all motorists. A non-net neutrality environment is one where the road operator could charge various rates to any number of groups, effectively price discriminating among motorist s (e.g. trucks vs cars, make of car, trucking company). The "Interstate Highway" option, i.e. government-provided broadband, does not appear to be seriously considered and is actually illegal in most states.

Interestingly enough, the most "socialistic" option, the Interstate Highway System, is highly popular with Republicans and Democrats alike, and is presumably one of the great political-engineering feats in this country's history. I can't imagine tiered access rates on the Interstate System being terribly popular with most walks of American society, to wit, the ban on the imposition of tolling.

[NE2]

Gee, the teabaggers are against it. Big surprise.

[wxfree]

When did "freedom" get redefined as "greed"?

Everybody wants to screw over everybody else, and the opportunity to do so is what we call freedom.  It isn't especially enlightened, but it is as far as we can see at the moment.

[kalvado]

Not even close. Heck, there are still many people that live in areas without internet access.

You may be surprised, but I saw quite a few presentations where solar cell market in Africa  is discussed in terms of "they don't need too much power, they just need to charge phones for internet access". Yes, establishing cell coverage is much easier than building power distribution grid....

[kalvado]

I find myself favoring a regulated environment (some form of net neutrality) largely because I look to historic examples in America of what's worked and what hasn't with utilities, specifically railroads and highways.

As I recall, the US government regulated railroads via the Interstate Commerce Commission because railroads were giving favorable rates and schedules to preferred vendors along routes in which they had a monopoly or effective monopoly. I think utility analysis along these lines is the best way to view the issue.

I think road analogies could be useful here. I see net neutrality as a toll road where a private vendor charges the same rates to all motorists. A non-net neutrality environment is one where the road operator could charge various rates to any number of groups, effectively price discriminating among motorist s (e.g. trucks vs cars, make of car, trucking company). The "Interstate Highway" option, i.e. government-provided broadband, does not appear to be seriously considered and is actually illegal in most states.

Interestingly enough, the most "socialistic" option, the Interstate Highway System, is highly popular with Republicans and Democrats alike, and is presumably one of the great political-engineering feats in this country's history. I can't imagine tiered access rates on the Interstate System being terribly popular with most walks of American society, to wit, the ban on the imposition of tolling.

we're OK with some forms of discrimination, but not others. Truck vs car is generally OK - even in terms of different speed limits and laws. But we're not OK with discriminating cars with Hillary stickers vs cars with Trump stickers. Nobody tried discriminating cars based on weight, and I wonder how that would work.
Airlines are OK with discriminating kids vs adults, even if both take a full seat - but struggle with discriminating overweight folks who need more than one seat. And they are definitely OK with discriminating Friday night traveler vs Saturday afternoon traveler
My impression is that net neutrality dispute is where one side says "They will discriminate cars by stickers!" - while driving overweight truck and trying to pay general car rate; and the other is saying "trucks must pay more than cars!" - while trying to put Lexus lane on each and every street.
Whoever wins, there will be someone who lost... And who is going to pay at the end of the day? Of course customer...

[Stephane Dumas]

One vlogger posted a interesting vlog about net neutrality.
https://youtu.be/RzuvGzK48wg

[SP Cook]

Here we see the epitome of Generation Snowflake.   

BTW, ever heard of the library?  Free internet.  For that matter, free internet at McDonald's. 

Ever heard of the USPS?  Glad to deliver your mail.

Poor Generation Snowflake.