Originally Posted by Azlen
One of the problems right now is that everything is speculation as to what happens if Net Neutrality goes away. We don't know what the ISPs will do but we do know what they will be allowed to do. We also know that corporations are legally obligated to maximize value for their shareholders. If there was a real choice right now with broadband ISPs, this wouldn't really be an issue but most people don't have a choice.
So really what it all comes down to is who you trust. Do you trust the ISPs to not try to maximize their shareholder value in a monopolistic market or do you trust the government to make sure the Internet stays the same for everyone?
I don't agree that everything is speculation as to what happens if Net Neutrality goes away. Although everything the above poster implies
I do agree with. There are models people have shared of how it may work, likely models that are in operation, such as the Portugal instance cited above. I suppose anything that happens in the future is speculation, but based on the past, the nature of monopolistic entities demonstrated for decades, and what was going on with my ISP before net neutrality make it seem a very good bet that letting ISPs do what they want will result in more restrictions, more complexity, and higher costs to consumers.
And how can I trust the government will make sure the Internet stays the same for everyone? They are talking of repealing the regulation doing exactly that! The reason for the thread is the reason not to trust the government to step in for us.
For example, Comcast as my ISP... Netflix was skipping, having trouble loading, hiccupping, giving me horrible bitrates, all sorts of problems. Netflix when I called them often had no idea why things weren't working well. Then with net neutrality, those problems just sort of went away and my streaming has been working wonderfully the last couple years.
Key principles for capitalism to work to everyone's benefit is: 1) That monopoly is avoided, and 2) that in general the populous - including companies - have a strong ethical code. In today's world, especially with ISPs, I fear neither of those key principles can be relied upon.
I too want to minimize unnecessary government regulation, or regulation that favors wealthy minorities. But is it unnecessary? - in this case I must agree with precedent about how utility company history has gone for decades. The FCC is likely being coerced by people or entities with big money.
In this article, it discusses how it is easy to debunk the FCC chairman's reasoning for repealing Net Neutrality: FCC's Reasons for Repealing Net-Neutrality Make No Sense for Consumers
And if an action isn't logical, it's political - and political means money (or power). I can only imagine how easy it would be to be corrupted in a position like that.
And lastly, let's say that investment is reduced in broadband networks (which article above says isn't true anyway). Investment isn't necessarily a benefit to us as consumers. If additional investment means putting in smart routers that restrict and govern our choices, or building network improvements that don't benefit the end user but make it easier to watch us, sell to us, and extract more money from us, then the additional benefit is not of interest to me!
I see nothing wrong with hoping for the best out of our ISPs and companies in an unregulated market. But we need also be careful to prepare ourselves for the worst, and in this case regulation to keep the internet free makes sense to me. How does net neutrality regulation hurt consumers? I'd honestly like to hear some cons to net neutrality regulations from a comsumer standpoint, because I can't really think of any.