Net Neutrality: Threat or Menace?

ETA: Part II here.

But one expert says Net Neutrality isn’t about regulating content on the Internet or the Fairness Doctrine.” via

Stupid, guys. First off, we already have per-GB pricing. Every server hosting account, every home machine is tied to a tier plan, priced and measured for bandwidth. Net Neutrality is very, very late to this battle. Presently the FCC is considering the legality of per-bit pricing, as opposed to tiered service. This is a power the states have already.

Net Neutrality has two different advances: one is outlawing latency billing, the other is outlawing ISPs from blocking or rate-limiting some sites. Latency billing first: I approve of it in principle, though an ISP could abuse it. TCP/IP has a latency protocol built-in. ISPs already charge you more per GB and for GB/s. What, I’m sorry, is it in the Bible that bandwidth pricing is true and holy, but those who charge for latency shall surely die? I don't recall that bit.

Government control of site access: it would allow the U.S. government to choose which least-favored sites get to be hamstrung. In the hands of a corporation, this is a nuisance; in government, it is a menace. Basic Hayek, c’mon.

Most providers now set up a home page for you: AT&T teams with Yahoo for their consumer home page. This can easily be reset. But the government is considering ruling on legal and illegal home pages: a power the states already have and the U.S. government does not need.

Net Neutrality: a power government does not need.