“Net neutrality” is stupid
Robin Harris
“Net neutrality” is another term for “common carrier,” first used for US telecommunications over 150 years ago. If advocates would just use “common carrier” instead of “network neutrality” we could quickly put this debate behind us.
Instead, by making “network neutrality” something new, controversy is created in what should be a settled area: common carrier status for communication infrastructure. Common carrier simply means that carriers handle all comers at a set fee, instead of auctioning access to their network.
The auction model
If network access is sold through an auction, the wealthy get good service and the rest of us get the leftovers. Carriers put their time and energy into maximizing revenue instead of minimizing costs.
If network access is available to all comers for a fee, then we all have equal opportunity to use the Internet for work or play. Providers can offer different service levels at different prices.
Look at FedEx: overnight costs more than 3-day delivery. But the important thing is that overnight costs everyone the same. Imagine going to a FedEx office with a time-critical legal document and instead of a flat fee they said “we have 1 overnight slot available - you’ll bid against these other people.” Very profitable for FedEx - not so good for you - or the country.
Same argument against providing electricity, natural gas, and water and sewage fees discounts for high-usage business customers while charging residential customers standard, non-discounted rates. Reverse socialism: enable business interests at the expense of average citizens. One more way of diverting money to the rich.
Support Corporate Dismantlement.
.
