The Bigsibling Blog

It’s coming, at least that’s the way it looks. I’ve always been an opponent to so-called "network neutrality." The concept sounds good on paper – but then again, so does Communism. The basic premise is this: All internet traffic is delivered at the same speed, with the same priority as all other traffic. Internet providers are not allowed to filter content, nor alter in anyway the speed in which it is delivered. Like I said, it sounds good on paper. The whole reason this net neutrality came about is people feared that ISPs would begin charging not only the end user (you and me, folks) but also the content originator (folks like google.com, foxnews.com, abc.com, etc.) – and we just can’t have that, I mean, the gall of some people, trying to maximize profits like some greedy capitalist!

Actually, they are afraid that the bigger content providers will pay the likes of Comcast, Time-Warner and AT&T to have their content delivered faster than their competitors content. They purport that this will stifle free speech. Free speech will be stifled, because the YouTube delivers a video 15 or 30 seconds faster than, say, moveon.org can deliver a video. Mind you, they are not afraid that a provider will filter content, that a provider will bar you from seeing certain things, make them totally undeliverable…no, that isn’t it. What they are afraid of is that the super-evil providers will allow content creators with deep pockets to get to you faster.

Now, my position is this; I pay my provider for, say 3Mbps access. That is, I can download content at roughly 3Mbps, give or take, as conditions allow. Now, if my provider wants to deliver search results from bing.com to my computer at 6Mbps, and google.com at only 3Mbps (the agreed upon speed that I pay for) because bing.com pays the provider a premium delivery fee, why should I care? Why should you care? Why should any end user give a hoot? Why should I be against the provider making a few extra bucks off content providers that can afford to pay for express delivery? Is the post office wrong for charging a premium fee for delivering a package overnight, I don’t think so. Now, if the provider began to charge EVERY provider for delivery, regardless, then I’d have a problem with it, and would promptly switch providers.

See, this is what some proponents of Net Neutrality don’t understand. They think that without it, AT&T and Cox and Comcast et al will begin to filter the internet based on who pays for delivery. I would present this as a poor business model, and nothing a sane business that wants to earn a profit would engage in. If content is filtered in such a way by the current crop of providers, we’ll see new providers rise up – ones that will not filter the data stream – to take their places. It’s called ‘free market’. Broadband internet is largely unregulated, and largely available to vast majority of Americans in one form or another. Remember the days before the small, 1 meter satellite dishes? Back when you had two options for TV? Over the air, or one cable company serving an entire city? No choices, you paid what the cable company wanted you to pay, and you got what they gave you. Period. No exceptions.

Obama has mentioned before that he sees broadband as a utility, much like power, and gas and water. Do you really want the government to regulate your internet? Do you want the folks who arbitrarily decide what news organization is actually a ‘news organization’ to decide what size of pipe you get, and how much you pay for it? Do you want to go back to the closed, government sanctioned monopolies of cable TV? How about electricity, water and gas? How much competition is there for those utilities? Think of there were two gas companies you could buy your gas from, that maybe you’d have a lower gas bill? I’ll bet you would, not to mention better customer service.

Stumble it!

Write a comment