I figured this would happen. I have trouble with the idea, though -- we're essentially talking about a private service choosing what exact services it provides. Nothing unusual about that. Can anyone share why they expect net neutrality from private corporations? Monopoly threat, like the article says? Or that the internet is a natural right? Would love to hear all different interpretations. EDIT: great points from everyone. More or less what I thought you all would say.
I think it depends if we consider ISPs to be utility companies (I do), and therefore providers of a public good. Power and water companies can't start throttling service where and when they want willy nilly. But on the other hand, we pay for power and water on a unit basis. And no one stands for paying for internet on a unit basis (c'mon, what is this, Canada?!).
I like that analogy. I'm not convinced the internet is a public good or that ISPs should be judged as utility companies, but at least I understand the argument a bit better now. "Net neutrality" is a dangerous term because it could imply something other than what it means. Would much prefer never to see it in a headline again.
I see the ability for us citizens to use the internet unfettered as important as their unfettered use of roads. IMO it is now a fundamental component of modern civil society. In that sense, I think 'Net Neutrality' is an appropriate term. I don't want to see my bandwidth determined by content. On a related note, IMHO the US needs to break out of the public/private debate, and concentrate more on the ends than the means. I strongly believe that it is a conveniently simplistic debate that has been co-opted and promoted by our bipolar political infrastructure. IMO we need to re-imagine both government and private entities, with a eye toward outcomes rather than ideological consistency. I worry that we argue about the wrong things, and let better futures pass us by.
I disagree. Moderates are not insignificant, but moderates often become disinterested in both of the two extremist parties. Although negative campaigns portraying the other party's extremism can counteract this. But I think extremism is more often rewarded in practice. For example, the rallying Fundamentalist Christian demographic in 2000, and the radically extremist Tea Party in 2010.
Because as a consumer, that's what I'm paying for—the internet. Not the part of the internet that paid their protection money. This isn't a problem if Capitalist Theory works the way it's supposed to. I can simply switch from Verizon to Sprint. Unfortunately, as you say, the problem is monopolist and anti-competitive practices. I can't simply switch my mobile carrier because I'm locked into a multi-year contract. I can't simply switch my landline provider because there are only two in my area and neither provides true internet. Like many economic policies, it comes down to impractical purist Capitalism. Pure Capitalism simply doesn't work. I can't think of any pure theory that does. Ideology must give way to pragmatism, and purist Capitalism must be tempered with the minimum necessary regulation to protect consumers against definitively sociopathic corporations. For Common Carriers, that means anti-discrimination laws. For ISPs, it means so-called "net neutrality."Can anyone share why they expect net neutrality from private corporations?
This is often true. In a stroke of extreme fortune I think I'll be eligible for Google Fiber within the next two years, but otherwise, limited options and multi-year contracts.Unfortunately, as you say, the problem is monopolist and anti-competitive practices. I can't simply switch my mobile carrier because I'm locked into a multi-year contract. I can't simply switch my landline provider because there are only two in my area and neither provides true internet.
Talking exclusively form the content point of view, I am sure this was a debate with the printed press at some point and addressed by journalistic integrity (maybe?). If the net follows other media experience we will have different internets for different audiences, thing that we already have (google search, facebook ad etc) because we really don't have a grip as users over anything that happens after we push the "on" button.
Well, exactly. If you have 'the power of the press' you can choose what you filter to your audience. The ISPs now have 'the power of the internet' and can choose what they broadcast. And already are.Talking exclusively form the content point of view, I am sure this was a debate with the printed press at some point and addressed by journalistic integrity (maybe?).