Mr Tansill
Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 431
Suppose you had a highway built by the govt that went from LA to NY. The only traffic allowed on that highway were car rental companies licensed by the government. So if you want to drive on that highway you need to rent from a licensed company. The car rental companies have to pay rent to the govt based on the size of the cars and the amount of miles they travel on this highway. So the rental companies charge their customers more for renting a truck than a economy car, and more for someone going all the way from LA to NY, because the car rental companies cost is also higher. Or the car rental company might not even rent trucks because it's not a high enough profit margin. It seems to me that net neutrality is like forcing the car rental companies to charge the same amount for all customers. In this example I don't think the govt should have any say in how the car rental company runs it's business. The governments only concern should be between the car rental company and itself. The govt should try to stay neutral, and charge for its service depending on cost. The govt should not be telling the car rental companies who they can rent to or how much they should charge or that they need to be renting to more minorities, or more electric cars, etc. It seems to me you are saying that because the govt owns and controls part of the operation, that the govt should micromanage the whole process. I think even though the ISPs are using govt property you should try keep the regulation to a minimum. Maybe my example is flawed, so I may be totally wrong so keep that in mind.
Hey Madison, thanks for the response. I think we're in agreement honestly (I bolded the parts of your response that I think are the crux of your point). In your example I agree - the government shouldn't have the ability to dictate how a car company prices models of its cars, nor should the government be allowed to tell the companies who they must provide service to, etc. If Enterprise or Dollar decide that they want to offer different levels of service (i.e. compact cars, trucks, SUVs, etc.) they should be allowed to price them according to whatever model they choose. Likewise, ISPs should be allowed to offer different levels of service - as they currently do through tiered pricing models and increased bandwidth to those who are willing to pay for it (reference ComCast's current pricing page: http://www.comcast.com/internet-service.html). The only thing that net neutrality does is disallow the ISP from throttling your 50MBS connection to 28.8Kbps if you're not utilizing 'preferred content' - i.e. content that is provided by companies that have business relationships with ISPs.
I agree that regulation should be at a minimum, and that the government shouldn't micromanage the whole process. In the simplest of terms, my understanding of net neutrality is simply that ISPs should not be allowed to discriminate between different types of traffic on the internet once the price of admission has been paid. Analogously, this would be akin to preventing car rental companies, as in your example, from discriminating against certain races of people.
