Net neutrality seems a very thorny issue to me and I feel that the arguments against, while not self evident, tend to be under appreciated (e.g http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2017/07/a-net-neutrality-parable.html ) I'd love to hear more analysis if you have a point of view inspired by environmental economics or analysis of the commons. However, a gut reflex pro-neutrality stance seems worth confirming and both sides worth evaluating. Would you consider writing a more in depth post on your reasoning?I see Google and Netflix as strong supporters and that makes me nervous.
My basic view (meaning I may not understand the details, as "NN" sounds a little like mom and apple pie) is that NN is equivalent to tcp/ip as a protocol that does not allow users to promote their data via payment. As an opposite extreme, consider corporate speech vs free speech. Corporations can pay to promote their ideas, even if they are bad. I've written in favor of money votes over popular votes (w rebalancing) here (http://www.kysq.org/pubs/JCWRE144.4.pdf) but I prefer NN as the Internet needs to let anyone on, while allowing everyone to vote in them, if it's to promote the non market commons
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.