The Economist also says Net Neutrality is a means to preserve openness,
though the piece fairly outlines its many cons. Without Net Neutrality,
proponents of government regulation argue Internet service providers will create
a closed Internet by blocking content or permitting some websites to ride on a
“fast-lane” above others. However, this, too, should be decided by
consumer choice in the free market, not by prescriptive rules from the FCC that
mandate extremely “open” business models. Consumer preferences in the
free-market alone have long ensured that ISPs do not block websites.
Additionally, prioritizing traffic helps prevent congestion, and the model of
offering paid fast lanes is utlized by mostly “open” companies like Google to
ensure their service is fast enough for consumers in places far from their
servers. Finally, paid prioritization would provide a new revenue source
for ISPs to lower prices and invest in broadband expansion, speed, and other
services – something that can be very good for consumers. Net Neutrality
and the FCC's lingering attempt at broadband reclassification could take all
these potential benefits away.
Chris Hull on 20 Sep 09Is it the governments plan for broadband? Or are the ISP's in the drivers seat?
