More net neutrality

I've written about net neutrality before. It is what I would call a litmus issue. You can tell if a politician represents consumers or predatory corporations by their position. Now that Trump has declared he is going to dismantle it, it's a good time to recap.

What is the difference between "00110101" and "10110111"? Not much of course. Your ISP can deliver either packet at equal cost. But if the first one comes from Netflix and the second from Google News, then people are willing to pay cash money for the first one, but not the second. To a corporation, the Netflix packet is GOLD! Your ISP, who owns the pipe to the consumers house, wants a cut of this action, like a troll under a bridge.

The laws of unfettered capitalism are harsh. Whoever owns the scarcest resource in a transaction gets the profit. In this case, the pipe to your house is a near monopoly, so in the absence of net neutrality, the ISP would get the profit. You might think the people who worked hard to create great entertainment should get the profit, but that's not how capitalism works.

Of course they can't charge the consumer directly for Netflix, that would be much too obvious. So they charge Netflix. Netflix has to pass that charge on to the consumer, but most consumers will just think Netflix is overcharging them.

The issue is abstract, so those who take a position have studied it themselves, or trust someone who has. Trump is proud of his ability to make decisions "intuitively", and his advisors are all Republicans. So this is really no surprise.