I believe pretty strongly that low-cost high speed access to the internet — the kind that many…
Steven Levy
1

I do too! I completely agree with your statement. However, your statement doesn’t bear a logical relationship to my inquiry.

The problem is, “Net Neutrality” not only didn’t provide “low cost high speed access”, but has resulted in less access, few choices, and higher prices.

Because as far as I can tell, the only visible outcome from Net Neutrality, from a pricing and accessibility standpoint, is that Google Fiber abandoned its build-out plans because they are now too expensive. I believe (and seek correction if I am in error) that this is because Net Neutrality removed Google’s ability to build its network based on demand, and imposed a utility-like universal service obligation on anyone building FTTH.

I suppose the question is, do we support policies because they have attractive names, but result in the opposite situation of what we desire, or do we stop supporting policies based on their names and instead focus on the actual outcomes of those policies?

Which is better: Cheerful feelings based on rhetoric which produce outcomes contrary to our intentions, or producing the outcomes we actually desire to obtain?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.