Originally Posted By: sini
Yes, everything you say is a valid, except you failed to consider immediate consequences of your position and instead talking about some might-never-come ideal outcome and ideal way of things. You assumed that if get government out of enforcing Net Neutrality, then magically we are going to arrive into completely market-driven internet infrastructure free of any kind of uncompetitive distortions. It doesn't work that way.

In reality we will end up in a shithole where providers double-triple-dip charge everyone and build walled gardens. Net Neutrality is what keeps these other evils somewhat in check.

Net Neutrality has to exist because other evils you described exist. When/If they disappear then the need for NN will also disappear.

.


I never assumed any such thing. I get frustrated because our society is ever focused on addressing the *wrong* problems, and crafting "solutions" without even bothering to identify what the real problems actually are. This NN debate exemplifies this.

Neither liberty nor efficiency can be maintained where principle is routinely abandoned in the name of expediency.

Society cannot be improved in this manner, even where effective the only thing this type of NN patchwork thinking accomplishes is slowing the rate of entropy - it obviously does nothing to help a self-organized system regenerate or rejuvenate. Even if slowed, accepting a paradigm of perpetually encroaching stagnation is still accepting failure in the long run.

Or in other words, NN advocates are simply advocating capitulation - albeit a slightly slower one. This is not a good outcome.

-----

In regards to your post on last mile, etc, yes I am fully aware of the entire telecom supply chain. Note I did not say "FedGov" when mentioning gov. In some ways the feds are a problem, in other ways localities... in any case, I wouldnt hold strong views on a system I didnt understand.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)