The underlying principle behind “Net Neutrality” would also bar Disneyland or Kings Island from selling “fast passes.” It’s just not fuh-fuh-fair that some people can afford, and are willing to pay for, cooler stuff than I can. This analogy is super apt. You don’t “need” to watch NetFlix or display your virtues on FaceBook any more than you “need” to ride The Beast or Space Mountain. History is replete with examples of the tragedy of the commons, usually leading to depletion of resources, deforestation, and starvation. Today’s lefties would inflict similar damages to net freedom.
We witness it almost everyday on the socialist road system. When there is no apparent cost to enter and max out your consumption, people will enter when they wish and max out their consumption — getting the goods before their greedy neighbors catch on. With toll roads and net freedom, people will assess the costs of their consumption without the assurance that casual users are subsidizing their cherished hobbies, and actually think about the cost of their goods and maybe consider alternatives to peak use periods.
update 171222: correspondent EA ignores my point and enquires after my empathy. Then she wishes for me to experience the soul crushing anguish, apparently, of waiting on line and seeing those who can afford the fast pass blow by me and my family. Unfortunately for her presumed designs on my misery, I was actually there at the time and it didn’t bother me in the least. I knew the deal going in, and I hope I took it like a grown up. I don’t recall my daughter’s reaction at the time; it seems to me she was just mainly delighted to be there. EA goes on to opine that those who do hold such perks are “spoiled brats” endowed by their “parents’ inheritance” or their ability to “thrive off… minimum-wager[s.]”
Based on her broad sneers at “the rich,” correspondent TE expresses grave concerns about the ideological environment in which EA raises her children and wonders what this might portend for their future lives. This apparently makes him a “Neo-Nazi”, or likened thereto (EA), or at least “discourteous” per correspondent ML.
Gentle Gene scratches his head and ponders that one.
Correspondent EA goes on to warn us that without the protections of “Net Neutrality”, we face as much net access as North Koreans.
Correspondent GP warns that without government oversight, service providers will price us all out of the market. Correspondent RW points out that competition will work against such fantastic monopoly scenarios. GP steps up her objections to net freedom by citing examples of “corporate” insiders paying off legislators and regulators. I thank both EA and GP for their concessions in re state control and regulatory capture.
Correspondent BA wonders whether government should treat the net as a “public utility” and correspondent ML points out that the net was created by the government, and is therefore still the property of government and therefore in its proper sphere of control.
I’m willing to concede that FedGov got there first. But it is in the nature of techno-geeks that they’re going to play with their toys. Propelled by the twin advantages of plunder funding and suffocating regulations for the rest of us it is not a surprise that Leviathan wins again. So what? Since darpa-net, thousands of additional servers and millions of man-hours have been devoted to it and it has grown well beyond the nursery. More private hours and private resources have been devoted to develop what we know as the net today and what we may not yet imagine for the future than was initiated in Al Gore’s garage.
I’m even willing to concede that early growth took place over cable systems that were controlled by government enfranchised monopolies. Again, so what? Despite its corrupt origins it is still private property. Throughout history rights in real property have been created by homesteading and development and negotiation. To suggest that all the results belong to those who only planted the seed is to ignore the years of skull-sweat, tedium, and toil that went into our present good fortune. (That was also the excuse of the Ante Bellum slave-master and the East German border-guard.)
“Net Neutrality” was a cruel hoax that helped to solidify the positions of entrenched insiders (as all regulations do). It was a response to a problem that didn’t exist, and the horror stories that attended its demise will soon fade from memory.
update 171224: I thought that was a fitting ending, above, but correspondent ML invites me to a more thorough discussion of the issues in a less vituperative environment, and challenges me to address “the disconnect”, though he declines to clarify what that might be.
I respond — Not to worry, after four decades and more of advocating peace, freedom, and personal sovereignty, I am well accustomed to being belittled, berated, and reviled. So far, my delicate little feelings seem to remain uninjured.
This latest crop of invective (spoiled, stupid, disingenuous, lacking empathy, magic, and Neo-Nazi) seems fairly tame. Well, okeh, I guess throwing “Neo-Nazi” was a little nasty, and so far has been neither recanted nor renounced. I’ll wait.
Meanwhile, Happy Xmas and Shalom!
update 171226: For the record and to his credit, correspondent ML apologizes for “magic”, stands on “disingenuous” and attempts to mitigate EA’s “Neo-Nazi” remark with a weak “he started it” defense. Also for the record, I still love ML and EA, but so far only respect, admire, and enjoy TE (as we’re mostly strangers). Upon reflection, I think maybe TE believes now that he should have known better. Warning parents about the physical, moral, or ideological dangers they expose their children to rarely works out well. I believe his intentions were benign, and I expect that if he didn’t recognize the petit gaff himself, then Mrs Colonel Potter has clued him in.