Your first question has been explained at great length many times. As a refresher, how about some reading?Kath wrote:Can you explain why net neutrality is bad? Would it be a good thing if you could be charged more to be on the roads because you are going to grandma's house instead of Walmart?Fife wrote:It's a great day in America.
https://mises.org/blog/net-neutrality-s ... corruption
Short answer: Net Neutrality Strengthens Monopolies, Invites Corruption
Maybe a video is less effort.Supporters of net neutrality, however, are claiming that the FCC will somehow necessarily work in the “public” interest and against the special interests who — experience tells us — tend to hold the most influence with regulatory agencies. .
In practice, the natural outcome of regulatory schemes like net neutrality is “regulatory capture,” in which the institutions with the most at stake in a regulatory agency’s decisions end up controlling the agencies themselves. We see this all the time in the revolving door between legislators, regulators, and lobbyists. And you can also be sure that once this happens, the industry will close itself off to new innovative firms seeking to enter the marketplace. The regulatory agencies will ensure the health of the status quo providers at the cost of new entrepreneurs and new competitors.
Ah, muh roads. Why *wouldn't* it be a "good" thing?Kath wrote:Would it be a good thing if you could be charged more to be on the roads because you are going to grandma's house instead of Walmart?
