This is another demonstration of why "net neutrality" is morally wrong (and therefore not needed). Think about what a law to stop this service means; a "net neutrality" law. It means forcefully stopping someone from offering this service. And forcefully stopping someone else from buying this service. Both of them want to do it by choice, because it benefits them, in their view.
To stop them from doing that, on any non-fundamental basis like an alternate opinion about the value of long term effects, is morally depraved.
Nope. It is people like you that are morally wrong in enabling oligopoly power and calling it completely consensual.
If you have 4 choices, all of them bad, is that really a consensual transaction? No. It isn't.
There is a finite amount of wireless companies capable of operating in a region due to the natural monopoly of the fact two parties interfere with each other when using the same band.
There's a clear moral difference between four bad options reached voluntarily, and one good option reached by forcing people. Who really believes that the way to achieve the best outcome, in society, is to forcefully tell people what they have to do?
Forcing people to do things against their will can never result in a better outcome than respecting people's rights. And in this age, anyone can educate themselves about why.
Alright. I'll buy up all the land surrounding where you live and deny you access to the world. It'll be purely a voluntary transaction between me, your neighbors, and the city. You weren't consulted but based on your moral belief structure you believe that is acceptable so you shouldn't complain when I wall you in and don't let you leave.
No? You don't like that? Well, it was a purely voluntary transaction on par with what you suggested.
Natural monopolies exist in the real world. Pretend they don't at your peril.
I didn't say that any voluntary transaction is legitimate. Rights can be a complex issue, but your example was solved long ago in several ways, such as with easements.
You won't be able to disprove the legitimacy of the concept of rights with a trite example, it would require a more serious discussion than we'll have here.
Two groups of cell towers using the same piece of spectrum interfere with each other in the same way as those walls.
The fact you don't understand what the walls scenario is identical to what you are stating is okay is depressing.
It is only when anyone is able to produce a good and distribute it, given sufficient capital, that your mental model is appropriate. No one can simultaneously control the same spectrum in the same geographic area without creating interference with each other.
Retail stores? Sure, what you are saying makes sense.
Sometimes "forcing" people is the best thing to do. That's how you solve social dilemmas: situation when allowing every agent involved to run free cause terrible outcomes even if it's temporary profitable for most/all involved (or sum of utilities is the highest for some time).
You ignoring this principle and claiming moral high ground makes you appear as a troll hence all the downvotes you are collecting.
You have two bad choices here. You can either admit your philosophy has holes, or you can explain how the labor movement resulted in a worse outcome than respecting employers' rights.
"Both of them want to do it by choice, because it benefits them, in their view."
Both parties? How did you arrive at that conclusion? I'm not offered a 100mbit connection in my location. Does that mean that I don't want it? Does that mean that my 20mbit connection is what I want and that I see the lack of choice as a benefit?
It benefits the provider, certainly, but the consumer may have no choice if they want these services. Their bill just went up, but there's little they can do about it.
Your wanting a 100mbit connection doesn't obligate someone to offer it to you. "Choice" doesn't mean choosing among anything imaginable, that may or may not exist. Choice only applies to what exists.
So yes, in the context of what's available (without forcing people to make what you want), both parties are choosing from among what exists.
Suppose I want to get rid of a few barrels of carcinogens. And suppose your neighbor would happily store them in his shed for $50 and a carton of Marlboros. How dare anybody stop us free adults from transacting morally uplifting business! After all, he has plenty of room right next to his fine collection of dangerously decayed explosives.
But yet we do prevent that. Regulation is about optimizing a large basket of outcomes. Focus purely on a single case and of course you won't be able to understand why that case suffers.
> But yet we do prevent that. Regulation is about optimizing a large basket of outcomes.
Or, looked at a different way, regulation is about internalizing externalities -- often including present internalization of expected future externalities -- in order to enable decisions made based on optimizing the utilities of the individual participants to be more in line with optimizing global outcomes.
Regulation that violates rights cannot have a positive outcome. That principle is cognizant of a wider range of cases than one of trying to optimize narrow outcomes (like a 'neutral' internet); the unseen consequences of rights-violations always overwhelm any narrow benefit.
In my philosophy, corporations have no inherent rights, only those privileges society chooses to bestow upon them, and can choose to revoke at any time for any reason. So it is literally impossible to violate Sprint's rights.
You must find some other way to reach your desired outcome, because framing it in terms of "rights" leads to the inevitable question of what rights a person or entity might have. And you will never get everyone to agree on that.
Well, it's an awful thing for Sprint to do, since providing access "just to Facebook and Twitter" cannot possibly cost them much less than providing access to the entire Internet. Thus, they are blocking poor users from the full information of the internet, and they are overcharging users who want the Internet the way it's meant to be for all of us.
To respond directly to your point, you're not entirely incorrect. However, if I pay for the "unlimited destinations package" which is what all current plans are, then there should be no "behind the scenes" throttling of particular sites for non-QoS reasons.
Everyone should have access to the ENTIRE Internet. Shame on Sprint for trying to turn it into a universally walled garden.
This is assuming that your standards for the internet access are universal to every person, and that you know every person's financial, social, and internet situation well enough that you're ready to decide for them. If you didn't know all of that for certain, it would be reprehensible of you to force them without knowing.
What you said about false advertising is correct, and I agree, that would be fraud.
What is assuming what? I didn't propose any evil, freedom-hating laws or "socialist" protections to an open Internet. I just said that it's a crappy thing for Sprint to do, and it is.
To stop them from doing that, on any non-fundamental basis like an alternate opinion about the value of long term effects, is morally depraved.