First of all, Vice-President Gore invented the Web, not this doofus. (OK, just kidding there!)
Secondly though net neutrality is immoral by Objectivist standards because it regulates free enterprise and crushes healthy competition. If my DSL from ISP 1 doesn't give me the bandwidth that a DSL from ISP 2 could give me, I have the consumer choice to switch to ISP 2. Ayn Rand would roll over in her grave at this notion of net neutrality which is pretty much close to socialism, because it ruins consumer choice and competition. If ISP 1 and 2 are forced to provide the same bandwidth then my consumer choice goes out the window, and if I am a shareholder for ISP 1 or 2 then my opportunity as a shareholder to profit from different DSL packages gets reduced to. This hurts the consumer by destroying competition and thus choice, and this hurts the shareholder by hurting profit potential by undue regulation.
Think about it this way, as Sen. Stevens of Alaska mentioned, the internet is like a series of tubes, with finite carrying capacity. I don't want to have to wait until Monday to get a video emailed to me on Friday because the government has forced my ISP to adhere to some arbitrary standard of how my ISP can utilize the tubes of the internet. No, I want my video on Friday, the same day it was emailed. I want the choice, the freedom, to choose an Internet Service Provider who can pick the biggest tube out there to use to send me my video. I do not want my ISP to be forced by the government to send me my video via a smaller tube, where it has to wait in line behind a bunch of other videos in that same tube. (Note: I am using the loose terminology here for clarity, but I actually work in tech as a software qa engineer with a background in unit testing and gui automation, I am A+ and Network+ certified, so I do understand what I am talking about, just to be clear.) I want the consumer freedom to have an ISP that chooses the biggest tube out there to send me my video and I don't want the government telling my ISP what tube to use. Period. Net neutrality hurts me as the consumer, and it hurts the shareholder. An ISP should be allowed to operate however it likes to provide value and choice to the consumer and profit for its shareholders, and big brother should not get in the way. Ayn Rand would be ashamed of this conversation. I hope for the sake of Western civilization that net neutrality is rejected, or else we will all be singing the Internationale before long.
I realize this might not be a popular sentiment, and I also realize my "karma" may be affected by it, but Ms. Rand would not let fear of karma reductions keep her from speaking out on behalf of truth, justice, and the American Way, and neither should I. :-)
Unfortunately, free markets don't really apply to ISP's in the US. In most areas, there is 1 DSL provider and 1 Cable provider. Possibly 1 FiOS provider (Verizon) if you're lucky. Telecoms are essentially monopolies.
Where I live, my only hardline choices are Frontier DSL and Time Warner Cable. Time Warner's service is significantly faster than Frontier's (20+Mbit down vs. 10Mbit down). If Time Warner began to prioritize packets from 'partners', and I chose to vote with my dollars, I'd have to settle for a competitor that's half as fast.
When megacorporations are involved, free markets are merely an undergrad Econ student's fantasy :)
I hate the Al Gore snide remarks, because we owe him for what we have. He did not invent the internet in the sense of the technology, but he did help create it by sponsoring the legislation that funded the Internet, separating it from DARPAnet.
Can we define Goredwin's Law as: 'As a technology forum discussion continues the probability of someone joking about Al Gore creating the internet approaches 1' and as a corollary stipulate that the participant who jokes immediately loses any credibility, and perhaps karma?
All laws distort markets. Are laws therefore socialist? Are all areas not regulated by government free markets? I think the answer to both questions is no. Laws are sometimes the platform for free markets and unregulated areas are sometimes ruled by nepotism and corruption.
With regard to net neutrality we should think about how access to markets for startups would be affected if net neutrality were to go. I'm not sure, but I suspect that without net neutrality starting a startup could become a more capital intensive affair. The amount of regulation in the form of complicated contracts with telcos could dwarf the amount of regulation that a pro net neutrality law would create.
You are referencing Rand like she is some sort of god.
I find the best perspective on any topic can be found by merging several different viewpoints.
The flaw in your argument is that often, there is no ISP 2. How does Rand feel about local monopolies? Even if there is an ISP 2, that is not a free market.
The average consumer probably won't be aware that certain services are being impaired by their ISP. If their provider is involved in throttling traffic to and from a competitor's website, the average person will probably just think that it's a rubbish slow site.
Secondly though net neutrality is immoral by Objectivist standards because it regulates free enterprise and crushes healthy competition. If my DSL from ISP 1 doesn't give me the bandwidth that a DSL from ISP 2 could give me, I have the consumer choice to switch to ISP 2. Ayn Rand would roll over in her grave at this notion of net neutrality which is pretty much close to socialism, because it ruins consumer choice and competition. If ISP 1 and 2 are forced to provide the same bandwidth then my consumer choice goes out the window, and if I am a shareholder for ISP 1 or 2 then my opportunity as a shareholder to profit from different DSL packages gets reduced to. This hurts the consumer by destroying competition and thus choice, and this hurts the shareholder by hurting profit potential by undue regulation.
Think about it this way, as Sen. Stevens of Alaska mentioned, the internet is like a series of tubes, with finite carrying capacity. I don't want to have to wait until Monday to get a video emailed to me on Friday because the government has forced my ISP to adhere to some arbitrary standard of how my ISP can utilize the tubes of the internet. No, I want my video on Friday, the same day it was emailed. I want the choice, the freedom, to choose an Internet Service Provider who can pick the biggest tube out there to use to send me my video. I do not want my ISP to be forced by the government to send me my video via a smaller tube, where it has to wait in line behind a bunch of other videos in that same tube. (Note: I am using the loose terminology here for clarity, but I actually work in tech as a software qa engineer with a background in unit testing and gui automation, I am A+ and Network+ certified, so I do understand what I am talking about, just to be clear.) I want the consumer freedom to have an ISP that chooses the biggest tube out there to send me my video and I don't want the government telling my ISP what tube to use. Period. Net neutrality hurts me as the consumer, and it hurts the shareholder. An ISP should be allowed to operate however it likes to provide value and choice to the consumer and profit for its shareholders, and big brother should not get in the way. Ayn Rand would be ashamed of this conversation. I hope for the sake of Western civilization that net neutrality is rejected, or else we will all be singing the Internationale before long.
I realize this might not be a popular sentiment, and I also realize my "karma" may be affected by it, but Ms. Rand would not let fear of karma reductions keep her from speaking out on behalf of truth, justice, and the American Way, and neither should I. :-)