That's like suggesting that we don't need laws against fraud in functional healthy markets. Removing monopolies would not fix the privacy issue either.
However, it would probably eliminate the need for net neutrality. In the meantime, we need it.
And we need to keep privacy laws in place until such time that technology makes it impossible for ISPs to discover any details about what you are doing. Don't hold your breath.
Of course not. I didn't say or even imply as much.
> However, it would probably eliminate the need for net neutrality. In the meantime, we need it.
Maybe, but I think the importance people place on this is exaggerated. If you want it as a stopgap, fine. But let's not pretend that NN is going to seriously impact any of the issues discussed in this article.
Network Neutrality didn't go far enough. Most major eyeball networks in the US charge a high fee (should be zero) for interconnecting with content providers. And even after fees have been agreed to, drag their feet on installing the ports or limit port availability.
We should be looking for ways to give NN more teeth, not get rid of it. Without NN, ISPs can expand the war currently being fought via port availability and pricing, to specific content within a port... as well as placing traffic shaping and QoS back on the table (legally).
Yes, I think monopoly-breaking and increased competition between ISPs is vital. But right now, we don't have that. In fact, we have generally have state/local governments protecting monopolies - there's no chance at a free market when competition is criminalized.
So at the moment, the question is "given these unbreakable monopolies, do we want them behaving well or poorly?" And that doesn't seem hard to answer.
Net neutrality is about each ISP, carrier etc treating each packet flowing through the network equally and not discriminating between its origin or destination.
If net neutrality is gone, ISPs and back bone operators can start asking for money for packets routed though their network based on who the packet is going to. You want to watch Youtube? Well, your ISP thinks its unfair that you are using the internet connection you paid for already to do that, they would rather you watch their own service. So, they throttle your connection to youtube, and ask money from both you and Google, to make it fast again.
The danger here is that Internet will be turned exactly what cable TV is now.
And if you do want physical world analogy, this is a better one: Imagine that starting next Monday the Yellow Cab Company begins charging all business to which a fare is delivered, since it is unreasonable for businesses to receive the benefit of customers and employees arriving at their sites in a safe and timely manner and for them to pay nothing. After all Yellow Cab Company spends time, gas, and quite frankly, expects them to pay their fair share of the fare. They may also begin billing all businesses passed on the way to a destination, as these business receive "free marketing".
If presumably technical people visiting this site have such a hard problem with net neutrality, I'd say the battle to keep internet free is lost.
As a rule, no.
> Would it not be better if guys who are richer and can afford more bullies, intimidate you and ask for money while you are trying to walk by their house/business etc?
Definitely. Rich people are both busy and fewer. Right now I have people who are poor (and not busy) intimidate me and asking me for money. Why is this better?
If we dont depend on government for regulation we lose everything because no other system can arise within the confines of what we have.
Eliminating regulation will in no way eliminate local monopolies, only the opposite.
One way to cut the ISP out of the loop is to use a VPN so all your ISP sees is you (the source IP) talking to your VPN provider but this just shifts the "who knows who you're talking to to" the VPN provider (who may have these restrictions as well). Tor offers good* anonymity but if you start steaming videos over Tor you're going to have a bad time.
Yes the ISP needs to know who you're talking to to apply these limits so a VPN can help bypass things like speed limiting but many services like Netflix block VPN providers (to stop people getting round region locks etc...), alternatively ISPs could just start limiting all traffic to your VPN provider as they would to Netflix or YouTube.
The issue is that ISPs want both parties to pay for bandwidth (you with your subscription, the providers with peering), don't pay? your users suffer, so your business suffers, so pay the protection racket to make sure your packets reach where they're supposed to.
* Good enough for most people trying to be anonymous, but there are still multiple attacks possible to reveal who you are if you're targeted and sloppy.
Your VPN complaint is bunk when each person can have their own VPN in any region for ~$5/month. And no, blacklisting IPs is not cost effective for any ISP--either there are too few people that it's not worth the effort or you blacklist a huge swath of IPs and their owners just cycle the address of their VPN (leaving the ISP with a huge blacklist of non-VPNs).
Unfortunately, if that ever hapoens it won't be any time soon. ISP's just throw lawyers at new entrants to the market who can, through legal maneuvering, delay entrance by years and fighting them will cost a fortune. There were some successes by municipalities (who voted foe their own city owned isp) but many many more losses
What alternatives to government regulation do you see in regards to data selling and paid preferential QoS? Other than "voting with your wallet" (which is largely impossible since most markets only have 1-2 ISPs) what can the average consumer do to prevent this? How will they even gain visibility? Do you know what information your ISP has sold about you over the last few years? It's definitely more than you think.