[calroc]

There are no "cons" to net neutrality. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best and duplicitous at worst.

The idea that we won't get enough bandwidth in the future unless the telecos et. el. are allowed to play gatekeeper makes no sense to me.

[roin]

CON: The more money I think I can make by owning network infrastructure, the more I will invest to build it now.

That's not to say that net neutrality is bad or wrong on balance, but no cons at all?

[calroc]

Faulty frame. Try it with other basic infrastructure: "The more money I think I can make by owning ROAD infrastructure, the more I will invest to build it now."

See the flaw?

[roin]

I do not see the flaw. The statement in quotes, while a simplification, is correct if a private company is making the decision. If a government is making the decision (typical with roads, not with broadband), there are a ton of other factors, although in an ideal world they would also try to do a similar NPV calculation. In any case, the government doesn't own broadband.

[calroc]

Bandwidth is infrastructure, like roads. It should be managed by civic authority for civic benefit, not exploited to increase private wealth.

Do you actually want to deal with a biased pipe?

[roin]

No I don't, and that is a big pro of net neutrality. But that doesn't mean there are no cons.

[calroc]

Okay, what are they? And I mean cons from the POV of users (and hosts are users too in this sense) not from the POV of an unnecessary commercial organisation overlaid (overlain?) on the infrastructure.

I'm not being snarky here, I'd really like to think a new thought.

(To be fair, or just contrary, I kinda feel that all the porn and ads might due with a little reduced service, but I'm not megalomaniacal enough to think that I should get to decide for everyone else..)