Replies

For me, it was a two level approach to understanding it.

Step One: Who is for it, and who is against it? On nearly any issue, when all the leftists line up on one side, it is uniformly going to be a bad proposition for the individual, the country, and the world.

Step Two: Who benefits and who doesn’t? Leftists like to say the “Working Man” benefits from Net Neutrality. When I hear that, I run the other way. Fast. In. this case, it is Thomas Sowell’s admonition to avoid one stage thinking. When the surface is scratched and you look at the next level, it boils down to this: If a carrier cannot differentiate themselves from their competition by increasing their network infrastructure and capability because their competition can use their infrastructure, then WHY WOULD THEY IMPROVE THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE? The simple answer is...they won’t. And if they don’t...who will?

You have one guess to figure out who is going to do it if the carriers don’t. And that entity that will do it is well known for waste, corruption, poor service, and inefficiency. You get one more guess to figure out where that entity will get their money from, and who decides what is done with it.

The obverse side of it is that if a carrier CAN get a business advantage by improving their infrastructure, then they will, and a rising tide will lift all boats. It is competition that does that. And they do that by improving their infrastructure so they can reach more customers with cell service and internet access by extending it in those directions. People who had poor access to cell service and the internet will be brought on board, because someone can make money doing it.