Re: Wellspring Of Terrible Analogies
My only complaint is that I can't give positive feedback on gvandunk's comment more than once. This is absolutely a two-sided issue with real implications for all kinds of businesses, repercussions on both sides, and room for compromise without going all one way or all the other. All that being said, anyone who doesn't come out and admit that current major ISPs are getting away with some shady practices, that the current market is rigged against competition, and that consumers are getting the short end of the stick is being plain disingenuous. End of story. If you look at a real piece of net neutrality legislation in the real world, and you don't think it will alleviate those problems, that it will make them worse, or that it will cause other indirect problems, that's fine. If someone denies that those problems exist, I must conclude they either don't undersand the issue or they're lying because of their political leanings.
On the other hand, I do think there's a lot of legitimacy to the complaints made by ISPs - what if Netflix used 1,000 times more bandwidth than everyone else? Would that still be okay? What I would say to hardline net neutrality supporters is, if you think the internet should be a public resource that nobody controls, that's fine, but currently, it isn't. It's a private service offered to you by companies. We basically set up the current system before realizing what the consequences even were. It's ridiculous to suggest that it doesn't warrant a second look. Still, other countries have much stricter government regulations on ISPs (albeit in other ways), with much better (faster, higher uptime), cheaper, service. I think there is real stock in the moral argument that the internet should remain neutral - I just happen to think that's also the best outcome for the country and for the economy.