Share on Facebook Share
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Google Plus Plus
Net Neutrality is a huge topic, again. But it’s important to realize that Net Neutrality is mostly being discussed in the United States — not because it is ahead, but because it is behind. In countries where fiber is the norm to households and they typically have 15-20 ISPs to choose from, Net Neutrality is so taken for granted, it is not a discussion at all.
Net Neutrality is absolutely necessary as a desired outcome; it presents a level playing field. Let’s begin with establishing that. Neither socialists, nor liberals, nor conservatives want anything else than a free, fair, and level market with low barriers to entry. Where opinions go wildly apart is on the correct and optimum path and method to reach this goal, net neutrality.
There are people who believe that more regulation of the market is better. This column is not aimed at those people; they would consider Net Neutrality regulation a beneficial rule for the market, and so, pretty much a no-brainer.
Instead, I’d like to address the people who argue that more regulation always results in a worse outcome, and therefore, we shouldn’t regulate Net Neutrality, because it’s going to cause a regulation mess down the road, raise barriers to entry, and limit the marketplace. The thing is, these people have a point. We really don’t know what happens, when a telecom authority takes itself the right to regulate the net at this level, and that authority is subsequently captured by the telcos it is supposed to regulate. What we do know, however, is that telco and cable operators will take every chance they get to double dip revenue and discriminate traffic, and so, we