No we have not established that Net Neutrality will fail in the long or short term, other than being undermined with the support of misguided positions like yours. There are two outcomes to Net Neutrality - ether status quo going to get preserved by getting codified in law or it will get unofficially repealed by thousand cuts of precedences and exploitative practices. This whole fight started when in 2005 AT&T CEO started complaining that Google, that already pays for bandwidth, should be also paying for access to AT&T subscribers, who already pay for bandwidth. This further escalated in 2007 when Comcast (also cable TV operator) got slammed by FCC with fines for throttling traffic to competition. Instead of complying Comcast decided to lawyer it up and challenge FCC's authority to enforce status quo.

Net Neutrality is immediately needed, it is how things have worked as agreed-on rule (Internet Policy Statement) for the past 20+ years and it is how we got where we are today. If it wasn't the case, we would have 1-2 different AOLs selling something that would resemble cable channel subscriptions.

You are mistaken in your assumption that NN is something new, and not a fundamental principle and part of the design that is getting codified in the law. You are contradicted by facts in your speculation that without NN things won't immediately turn for worse (more expensive and/or more limited). You are also mistaken when attributing separate, completely independent problems to NN.

In closing - you don't understand what Net Neutrality is, in your opposition you chose to ignore or discount adverse effects of undermining it, and you base your opposition to Net Neutrality on a) political ideology b) wrongly attributing effects of other issues to NN.

Your position is not unlike opposing use of chemotherapy to treat cancer on the basis that it causes male pattern baldness.


Last edited by sini; 05/10/13 06:35 AM.
[Linked Image]