RE: Analysing Net Neutrality: Good Riddance
I think the main thing people are concerned with is the simple fact that with more freedom comes more opportunities to take advantage of it in egregious ways.
Yes, Net Neutrality offers more freedom. Freedom to set different prices for Internet, freedom to offer more for less, and freedom for small, startup ISP's to offer a bigger variety of service to small, out-of-the-way areas.
The biggest issues people have with Net Neutrality are:
- It's a change. People don't like change.
- Trust. How can we know people won't try to take advantage of it?
Ironically enough, Ajit Pai not listening to thousands upon thousands of people not wanting Net Neutrality is a good example of what could happen if one puts their trust in what are supposed to be higher powers/higher authority. Whether you are for or against Net Neutrality, it's clear to see that the PR surrounding it was handled very poorly. They put Ajin Pai's dumb mug over a green screen holding a fidget spinner. Just that alone shows how badly they handled it.
But back to my point. Ajit Pai, instead of trying to explain himself or explain what Net Neutrality was in a clear, concise manner easy for all to understand, was very vague and never really explained why it was such a good idea to remove it. Instead he mocked those who said "no" in a very clear, public, scathing manner and never once offered any counterpoints.
Not only was this handled poorly, it did little to quell the public's lack of trust in a higher authority. It reaffirmed that people higher than them cannot be trusted, and counterintuitively convinced them further that the removal of Net Neutrality is bad.
I'm glad you discussed the various points regarding Net Neutrality and cleared things up, because so far, not many people have tried to do this properly. I, personally, am ambivalent toward the subject, mostly because I'm still unsure what will come of removing it. I think this unknown quantity is what scares most people- the fear of the unknown, of change, is very strong in most.
I think companies won't risk losing hundreds of customers by throttling certain sites to an extent, and I certainly don't think the internet is going to be offered in packages. That's simply paranoia and overthinking.
But I also think that the reintroduction of stiff competition in the market will actually potentially destroy small startups, as big companies will more easily be able to afford lowering their prices than smaller companies who have little to their name.
More regulation hurts startups. Competition and freedom does not. The latter requires hard work and intelligence to pull out on top, which is a good thing.
A core factor in why people don’t want freedom is laziness. Freedom requires vigilance and smarts. That’s more effort for you than if you sell out to the government, but the rewards are far greater.
I agree with you to an extent, but if a multibillion dollar company like Verizon or AT&T face off against a small startup, the small startup, unless very well-funded and well-supported, will die out because they won't be able to afford cutting their prices.
Think of it this way. Pretend that some shallow girl wants to date someone. Say you and Bill Gates. You save up every penny for a month straight so you can take her to a pretty nice place. You plan to take her in your car to a cozy 3-star eating establishment with outdoor seating on a nice day.
Bill Gates has a team of servants find the best romantic spot for a dinner, and plans to fly the gal to that place (most likely a different country), giving her the best possible treatment the entire way, and possibly even a five-star reservation at a nearby hotel.
Who would win her affection? Bill Gates. Obviously. He is able to provide more for less effort than you can.
The same goes for big ISP's. They can afford to waste/spend more money giving their customers really good deals, early startups simply cannot keep up.
Now, it may be true that startups have more freedom now, but that freedom extends beyond just those startups. The whole purpose of getting rid of Net Neutrality is to remove restrictions from EVERYONE, not give people preferential treatment. It's to decentralize the internet.
Unfortunately, just due to the nature of things, small startups will still be up shit creek, just because the larger companies have more money to spend, have been around longer, and are much more experienced in how the economy works/how to run a business.
What you're describing is anti-competitive behaviour. That's illegal in most places. In areas with little regulation it is never a problem because monopolies make zero profit in the long term when there is no barrier to entry and exit. There is a barrier to entry for ISPs, but the more freedom the lower this barrier becomes.
If there were no regulations and laws at all, I would be confident that Verizon would collapse quite quickly. In a totally free market predatory behaviour doesn't work out well and consumers will look elsewhere.
Net Neutrality at its core was government control over ISPs. It was never about business or economics. Always control and power.