re: Net Neutrality - Layman's Terms

quote:

---

who is the government to say what private companies can do with their businesses?

---

In the case of companies that provide vital infrastructure, there is a strong case to be made that government involvement is necessary. Imagine if all of our utilities and infrastructure like electricity, water, sewer, roads, etc. were really free markets. Imagine all the duplication of effort, the multiple competing and separate electric grids, etc. Choice is great for consumers, but dozens of cables, pipes, or even roads running to each neighborhood and house would be a terrible situation.

It's really a question of whether internet service should be considered a utility. This is kind of where the talk of classifying ISPs as "common carriers" (like phone companies) comes in. As the electric grid example kind of points out, it doesn't make much sense to have that sort of competition (duplicate infrastructure), so it is argued that the better scenario would be to regulate ISPs, force them to sell access to their infrastructure, which would allow ISPs to compete using the same set of wires. This is how they do it in Korea, and it works very well. In this scenario, Net Neutrality regulation wouldn't be so necessary since anti-consumer practices would have consequences... another ISP could spring up overnight and offer better service.