It may just be me, but... Net neutrality seems like the wrong argument to have. I think the right approach is to not allow vertical integration. That is, a company that provides voice, data, or TV service needs to be treated as a common carrier. They must provide the 'dumb pipe' and let others provide the service over that pipe. This will spawn innovation and deliver on the communications promise. As it is, each vendor is spending scarce resources on not being a 'dumb pipe'.
I do not see how Net Neutrality can deliver this. Vertically integrated companies (say Comcast/NBC) can be forced to treat all sources equally. But, they have no incentive to innovate. Just look at the STBs that TV providers produce compared to any other consumer electronic device.
exactly. they should either maintain and improve infrastructure or provide the information that is going across it. Not both.
reply to OwlSaver
Well, actual competition would go further than rules made by for-hire regulatory agencies...but with said regulatory agencies being for hire, they're not going to go out of their way to implement policy that results in actual competition.
reply to OwlSaver
I guess I view this a little bit differently. First of all without being able to overcharge customers and show a significant profit stream where will we see innovation in the actual pipes? Why will a company roll out new fiber or upgrade existing networks if they don't think they can make tremendous profits off them. Its the huge cost barriers for entry that prevents real competition.
Think of any of the turn of the century robber barons and how their massive initial investments built the systems that were eventually broken up(steal, railroads, ect.) The real question I have is are we ready for the breakup yet? I don't think so.