Net neutrality


Moving away from the monopoly potiential

Sean Lynch has a pretty good post on net neutrality over at Catallarchy.

Anyway, I seriously doubt the Googles of the world want to be dealing with paying a bunch of different ISPs for access to those ISPs’ customers, when the customers are already paying for access to the whole Internet.

In a truly free market where AT&T hadn’t been handed Death Star status on a silver platter, this would all be pretty irrelevant. If people wanted nondiscriminatory access to different services, they’d choose an ISP that provided that. But unfortunately this is not the world we live in right now, and a narrow net neutrality law that was restricted to government-granted-monopolies would probably not be particularly harmful and might even help out a bit.

The potential damage would come from preventing business models like free or extremely cheap access in exchange for getting crappy performance to “non-preferred” sites. Isn’t this how most health insurance works anyway? There’s probably a bit of a problem with setting more of a precedent for regulating the Internet, but such a narrow law would only apply to US companies and not really “the Internet” anyway. And we already had CAN-SPAM which in my opinion was the real Pearl Harbor of Internet regulation. Good thing it’s been such a resounding failure.

Well said and on the nose.

If I am connected to the internet and the world wide web, I want connections to all of it, even if I am not going to use it all.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Tue - June 27, 2006 at 04:07 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library



Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved