How Net Neutrality Hurts the Poor
theumlaut.com
How Net Neutrality Hurts the Poor
1–6 of 6 posts
Re: How Net Neutrality Hurts the Poor
#2As if it weren’t enough to connect the world’s poorest for the first time, non-neutrality can also help to fund necessary network buildouts on an ongoing basis
That's not how that works out at all. What a load of rubbish.
Re: How Net Neutrality Hurts the Poor
#3It's rather disingenuous to not mention the real problems of network non-neutrality. Specifically, rent extraction by those who have a privileged market position.
Re: How Net Neutrality Hurts the Poor
#4This article makes the assumption that when Comcast breaks net neutrality, all they're doing is providing "low quality" internet. That's true, but that's not really the problem. Comcast being "low quality" isn't the issue -- they've always been low quality, net neutrality doesn't change that.
The problem is that Comcast has a monopoly over the service.
The article assumes "high quality" is some sort of choice that people can make. This is true in scotch or automobiles (as the author describes). This is not true in internet service, Comcast has a complete monopoly over the vast majority of the nation.
An "optimal" part of stock is low quality stock, this is true. But a "mid quality" and "high quality" choice is also an optimal part of stock. Comcast is effectively mandating that every man, woman, and child in the country must pay for a "high quality" option, but only receive their "low quality" option.
Surely, even the author should understand the difference here.
Re: How Net Neutrality Hurts the Poor
#5I feel like the author confuses efforts to gain adoption by subsidizing the costs voluntarily, and the situation Comcast applies to those like Netflix.
I do not see net neutrality being an enforcement that states CDNs and such can't make more optimal network paths of their own free will.
Re: How Net Neutrality Hurts the Poor
#6I stopped reading after encountering the word "neutralistas."