Net Neutrality and the SAFE Network

In earlier posts on this forum I said I expect that will happen (e.g. here) once NN is implemented and I think that’s fine. Please understand, for me the problem is not to pay, but to not be able to pay more to get a better service than my neighbor (who may be a competing MaidSafe farmer). If NN and one size fits all is implemented, that destroys any incentive for me to tune my farming rig, or to buy a better farming rig and provide better service to MaidSafe users, because my neighbor with his crappy setup will get the same crappy network service like me.

In this topic I claimed that building a YouTube-like service would have been more competitive with MaidSafe if YouTube had to pay for their traffic. But with YouTube and NN (of sorts), where they freeloaded on the infra, we (the consumers) effectively subsidized Google. There should be no subsidies for anyone, period. It should be left to the market. And then I could get a fair price and also pay less tax because there’s less need for an army of public servants to protect me.

I believe you, but that’s not a problem of a free market, but of a rigged market. That’s exactly why the last thing you want to do in this kind of messed up environment is to give even more power to the worst kind of people who are solely responsible for this situation (the government).
Management of private companies has duty to generate as much profit as they (legally) can. There’s nothing wrong with that and as I said earlier the moment they start squeezing their customers too hard, customers go away to a new, cheaper/better provider. The problem is when the government makes this process more difficult or impossible.