I don't agree with everything Woz argues, but the story about his dial-a-joke line makes it worth a read.
The core argument that I have in favor of net neutrality is that, at least in the US, the last mile of connectivity to one's home is provided via a government-mandated monopoly or duopoly. My local government granted Time Warner and Windstream (a regional phone company, formerly Alltel) exclusive rights to run wires down my street and to my house. In exchange for these rights, those companies agreed to rate approval and other restrictions. Now, they want to indirectly extract more money from people in my community by selling premium access to their homes. I am not sure why net neutrality is not seen as a local or state issue -- much like cable rates and the price of electricity.
Similar arguments can be made about the wireless carriers. The US government artificially limited competition in the wireless space by deciding how many different entities could own the spectrum in any particular geography. While I am more sympathetic to the wireless companies' arguments for traffic prioritization, the claim of absolute free enterprise is laughable.
I am a small-L libertarian. I don't think I should have any right to tell Apple what content it should or should not carry on iTunes, what products WalMart should stock on its shelves, or any number of other things that private enterprises operating largely without beneficial government mandates might care to do. But, to suggest that a government-enabled monopolist should be able to pick and choose the issues where it can pull out the Free Enterprise trump card is absurd.
The core argument that I have in favor of net neutrality is that, at least in the US, the last mile of connectivity to one's home is provided via a government-mandated monopoly or duopoly. My local government granted Time Warner and Windstream (a regional phone company, formerly Alltel) exclusive rights to run wires down my street and to my house. In exchange for these rights, those companies agreed to rate approval and other restrictions. Now, they want to indirectly extract more money from people in my community by selling premium access to their homes. I am not sure why net neutrality is not seen as a local or state issue -- much like cable rates and the price of electricity.
Similar arguments can be made about the wireless carriers. The US government artificially limited competition in the wireless space by deciding how many different entities could own the spectrum in any particular geography. While I am more sympathetic to the wireless companies' arguments for traffic prioritization, the claim of absolute free enterprise is laughable.
I am a small-L libertarian. I don't think I should have any right to tell Apple what content it should or should not carry on iTunes, what products WalMart should stock on its shelves, or any number of other things that private enterprises operating largely without beneficial government mandates might care to do. But, to suggest that a government-enabled monopolist should be able to pick and choose the issues where it can pull out the Free Enterprise trump card is absurd.