|
So after reading some of this stuff the main argument that makes sense to me about why net neutrality ending would be a bad thing is because government would monopolise the ISPs in certain areas which would be terrible for the consumer and also very easy for companies to exploit.
Over the short term, this type of thing can hypothetically be a problem that arises. Though I am not persuaded by the idea that because government is causing a problem, more government is needed to "solve" the problem.
Monopolies arise in private industry for different reasons than when created by government, and those reasons are a bit different than what people think they are. The main reason is "economies of scale," which, while providing naturally monopolistic attributes, can also act as a negative feedback that makes the monopoly less able to adapt and thus less able to maintain its monopoly.
An important thing to note about a government trying to "fix" a monopoly is that when it does so, regardless of whether it actually works, it entrenches the monopoly such that disrupting it and it actually being fixed becomes significantly harder. The most common way this would be is that the primary reason for firm entry into a market is the prospect of profit, yet if the government fixes the price in that market, firm entry is deterred. The kind of thing that seems to happen when markets are left to work by themselves is that monopolistic elements come and go. The kind of thing that seems to happen when governments intervene in order to "fix" monopolies is that they stick around for a very long time.
|