I hear good arguments on both sides. The worst-case scenario of different levels of internet service for access to different sites is troubling. And if you could convince me that it's likely to happen without the FCC's regulation, I'd oppose repealing it, at least without a replacement. But it does seem unlikely, especially in a market like the US where there is the demand and willingness to pay for unrestricted access, and where political pressure could always stir regulatory agencies back into action. But I agree that it is a bad end result that should be avoided.
Here's my big question: weren't things fine before Tom Wheeler's net neutrality regulation? So why not go back to that? Am I forgetting something about that state of affairs?
Why not just let the government run its own neutral ISP like they run the postal service? It could be independently funded by its users, since obviously being an ISP is profitable (especially so when you don't have to deal with obtaining access to public land and poles). Then we wouldn't have to regulate these other ISPs because it wouldn't matter. They'd always have at least one competitor offering (likely subpar) internet access.
No way. Once you have a public ISP like that, it's one "minor reform" away from running parts of its operation at a loss, for the "public good". And before you know it, it's controlling the market, distorting prices, and holding back innovation.
Yes, privatization of utilities has been a very successful policy and was implemented across the world over the last few decades.
The case for internet service being private is very strong. Do you really think a government bureaucracy would have developed the internet to its current state if they had taken it over in the mid 90s? Competition and the profit motive is what has gotten us this far.
the government actually privatized what was at the time a public infrastructure connecting govt agencies and universities in the early 90s.
i agree with you that the internet would not be what it is today if it had remained in govt hands
i also think that if it had evolved soley from the private sector, the kind of balkanization and complicated service contracts that people are concerned about today would have been baked in from the start.
> (especially so when you don't have to deal with obtaining access to public land and poles)
Why wouldn't a public ISP have to bid for pole access? Is the implication here that a public ISP should have extra privileges that a private ISP doesn't?
Here's my big question: weren't things fine before Tom Wheeler's net neutrality regulation? So why not go back to that? Am I forgetting something about that state of affairs?