I take it you’re against net neutrality? I find that really interesting, because I’ve yet to find a compelling analysis for why it should be removed. Most technically-minded people seem to be universally for net neutrality.

I think I’d be OK with it being removed if there were true competition – the type that keeps restaurants competitive, to go back to your analogy. I care a bit less about the cost of restautant food because I can and do cook a lot of things on my own, so even if restaurants priced themselves to astronomical levels, I wouldn’t starve. But in the USA there’s very limited competition among providers, and unfortunately the internet has become too important for me to say that I’ll just live without it. Because there’s a lack of competition, I don’t believe that the companies wouldn’t put up “tolls” on various websites, or charge others… it would give them too much control over what people can be exposed to.

Ultimately, the internet is society’s, is it not? The basics of the internet were developed by the government, and much of the current infrastructure – despite being owned by private companies – was funded at least in part by public money. The private companies have also used aggressive tactics to prevent private communities from creating public internet services even when they wanted to.

I’d definitely be interested in reading detailed thoughts of yours supporting the abolishment of net neutrality, though. You know more about the internet and internet services than most.

I think the main problem i have with your restaurant analogy is that you focus on the prices, but with net neutrality i’m more worried about the content.
I’m worried that the form of my connection to the internet would be too boxed in. It’s one thing that with the price model people have suggested, i’d have to choose because i have limited funds. In this case facebook would probably be cheaper or at least more compelling to access than say your webpage, or mine, robbing the internet of some of its wonders. However, different parts of the internet doesn’t cost different prices for the ISP to connect me to. The price changes are artificial.

Also, as others above have talked about, what if my ISP doesn’t want to sell me access to something (like netflix, because it rivals their TV business)? What if i only have one ISP to choose from (as is the case)?

If there is only one restaurant selling me food, i have no choice but to eat there, regardless of the ingredients. And i think that we SHOULD regulate those ingredients.

(I’m from Sweden, since you’re asking. Apologies for any grammatical errors, etc).

I think the point is this (in reference to your reply about getting electricity, water, healthcare) that yes, you have to pay for the utilities you use, but the electric company doesn’t control the amount of electricity you can consume or limit it based on the appliances you are using. And the water company doesn’t control how much water you use for washing dishes or taking a shower. The utility just functions and provides you with the basic service and you can use it how ever you want as long as you pay for it. However, rates are regulated and the utility companies do make quite a profit even being regulated as they are. Your comment that “the vast majority of it has come into being due to private business” is correct, but it’s also true that any innovation has only come from the need to create a product that gives them the profit making edge over their competitors. I know it’s a business and the point of business is to make a profit but, just like electricity, water and phone service, the internet is now an integral part of daily life, not just an entertainment source. Nothing should be free. But, when you have towns that have been prevented by legislation lobbied for by the internet providers from forming their own local, city owned internet infrastructure to provide for their citizens then it really doesn’t say to me that any kind of free market competition exists at all. These are places where business will not go as they aren’t profitable enough to them to warrant the investment.

So really, it seems to me that it should be provided as a basic utility service. I’m willing to allow that perhaps paid tiers of guaranteed bandwidth could be service plans, like what exists today. But it needs to be regulated so that we can all have equal access to at least the same quality basic connection all over the country. With Net Neutrality gone, it’s not at all unrealistic to imagine a scenario where for instance your blog, if it’s not hosted on the service providers blog service, could have its traffic limited or its bandwidth severely restricted unless you paid more or switched to their service just to make sure it can be found on all the search engines and that it loads at a decent rate. Further, I don’t think the infrastructure should be privately owned at all. Only the companies that provide the content should be. Make it a level playing field like the national highway system is in the United States. It was paid for by the government and look how business profits from it. Internet should be the same thing. The only reason that net neutrality is going to be killed is because it will make someone a lot of money, and that’s all that matters, to some at least- not implying that of you. (I will add that some will argue that the National Highways are a mess and falling apart, but that’s only because of partisan politics that place the infrastructure of the country below politics, not above as it ought to be.)

So to your point that when a law is passed, it’s taking something away form someone else, that’s true. However, ideally laws should be passed to benefit the majority of the citizens. And in the case of the United States, isn’t it supposed to be a country by the people, for the people, of the people? Seems killing net neutrality takes away from the majority of the citizens of the country in favor of the few. And I know that corporations have been able to get themselves classified as “people” but really, are they? The only thing being taken from the corporations by keeping net neutrality is their ability to make even more money (and let’s face it, they aren’t doing badly in their current form), at the expense of the majority. I am all for capitalism and the free market but the needs of the actual citizens need to prevail over the needs of business.

On a different note, I want to say that I really enjoy your blog. I found it way back when I was doing a search on Lightroom Export Quality and came across your post about it. As a frequent traveler to Japan, your posts make me realize how much of Kyoto I have yet to explore! I will say, given most of your content, I was surprised to find this post. But it’s a good topic that needs to be discussed. It’s late for me and I’m tired (West Coast, USA) and this isn’t the place for siting reference articles and so on, but again, an important and necessary topic to start a dialogue about. How is Net Neutrality in Japan? I’ve only ever had good experiences there, granted it’s been renting portable wi-fi routers to carry with me, but I’ve always had amazing coverage even in mountain region where I expected the service would never reach. And always fast! Thanks!

It is often instructive to turn the question around.

If an adult decides to put some chemical in their body, be it heroin or LSD or cocaine or whatever, is it in the government’s compelling interest to “use force” to prevent it? Either you agree that the government can and should “use force” to prevent adults from imbibing whatever substances they like, or you are in favor of total legalization of all drugs.

Do you think an adult has a right to receive money in return for sex? Does the government have a right to “use force” to prevent two adults from engaging in a private transaction? Either you agree that the government should “use force” to prevent some private contracts between consenting adults, or you are in favor of a blanket legalization prostitution.

One could go on.

My point is simply that “the government should only use force when absolutely necessary” argument suddenly becomes more problematic when it’s turned upon things we think shouldn’t be allowed.

It’s not problematic at all… these are exactly the questions we should be asking. In many cases the answer is “yes, the government should use force”, and in many case it’s “no”, but I think it’s important to remember that all laws are removing rights from someone. —Jeffrey

The restaurant analogy is a good start. My first response to that, however, is to suggest that I can just eat at home if my region has only one restaurant. In the one ISP/restaurant situation, “eating at home” would be akin to “not using the internet.” So would it be a better analogy to present an admittedly more artificial situation where someone is required to eat at the restaurant (or the restaurant is in some other way the only local food source)? An obvious problem with that is that it is artificial. In /most/ situations, a lack of internet access won’t directly lead to the death of a human, but not eating certainly will lead to that in 100% of cases. But the edge cases remain where characteristics of a communication medium can increase the chances of survival of an individual, group, etc., in non-commercial ways.

When I think of net neutrality, I tend to think about the edge cases like people trying to get out warnings or entreaties to other humans to help those humans or to prevent harm to the person originating the communication.

Communication (whether transmission or receipt) is not food. But what is it? Or what is it most like? What isn’t it like? What are other examples of similar situations?

I like this topic. I consider your points legitimate.