Posted on 12/31/2014 6:25:01 AM PST by lifeofgrace
The closest my mother and stepfather ever got to the Internet was a WebTV set top box we bought for their kitchen TV. Like most non-technical people, if I talked to them about technology and policy, I lost their attention immediately. This is the reaction people get when I mention “Net Neutrality”. It’s a technology and policy issue, and it’s not well understood, so we have to fight the MEGO (my eyes glaze over) factor.
Net Neutrality is about a lie. Three lies, in fact.
Three lies that lead to one bad policy conclusion: you didn’t build this; you don’t own this; and we (the government) are taking it over.
The first lie is that you didn’t build this. The Internet companies didn’t build a huge infrastructure just to sell you a little driveway onto the information superhighway. The government didn’t build the information superhighway—the Internet companies built it. The government didn’t pay for it with tax dollars either—you did by paying service fees.
And your connection to Netflix is only as fast as the slowest link in the chain. When you pay your ISP, you’re paying for them to maintain every connection in that chain, and for them to connect to every other ISP. You’re paying them to connect to the services and companies you use every day. Just because you’re limited right now in your broadband options because of “the last mile” problem doesn’t mean you’ll be limited tomorrow, but the Net Neutrality supporters want you to believe that.
The second lie is that bandwidth is a finite quantity. This is nonsense. Connection speeds have increased 27-fold and more in the last 20 years, without ISPs having to dig up every foot of wire and fiber in their networks every time they upgrade. We haven’t even approached technical bandwidth limits, never mind the physics behind them.
The Net Neutrality supporters would have you believe that ISPs want to limit bandwidth to popular services just to make more money from you, as if bandwidth were like beachfront real estate. If ISPs want to charge for large bandwidth users, it’s to provide better service to their customers, and ultimately, to improve their network. Remember, you’re paying for all of this.
You. Not the government. Not your neighbor.
The third lie is that the Net has always been “neutral” and Net Neutrality is somehow preserving that neutrality. The Net has never been “neutral” in this way. You can only believe the third lie if you buy into the other two. If an ISP wants to attract more customers, all they have to do is offer more bandwidth. Voila. Faster service. Or connect to more ISPs, or allow more services to host their data directly on the ISP’s network, closer to you. Voila. More reliable connections.
All of the reasons Net Neutrality supporters use to justify the government taking over the Internet are absurd unless you are an anti-corporate, anti-business activist. Like the disaffected hippies who crashed FCC hearings.
Before your eyes glaze over, hear this one thing: the ISPs, phone and data carriers, cell networks, and cable companies who run most of the Internet can function and adapt in either a non-regulated or a regulated environment. They know how to play the game of grease-the-pig politics and pay high-priced lobbyists to curry favor with government fiefdoms who pick winners and losers.
They also know how to market to consumers like you and me, and how to make customers happy and keep them happy. Right now, you have the power to make or break these companies, because you’re paying the bills and (mostly) calling the shots. Net Neutrality fundamentally changes that balance of power toward the government. Government (fatcat elites, lobbyists, and power hungry bureaucrats) wins, and you lose.
That’s what this battle is about. Let the FCC know that they have to stop this monster by clicking here and submitting your comments before it’s too late.
Common sense should dictate we should not even debate this issue with the FCC or any government agency. Our position should be we will simply not allow government manipulation of the internet no matter what laws they create. The internet represents free speech and is thus hands off for all of government. The position should be there is no debate, we will not comply.
Your comment makes me think that the entire idea of net neutrality is patently unconstitutional.
If government takes over the internet then that is clearly an abridgement of free speech...of the press...as well as the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
Who is to say that 'peaceably assemble' means to physically assemble? What could be more peaceable or non-violent than a discussion of an issue or issues in an online forum? No chance of physical violence there.
Additionally, it would infringe our Constitutionally protected right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If the internet is NOT the premier means of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, then why does the government maintain such a huge inventory of websites on this same internet?
I'm thinking that this angle could very well be used by a team of shrewd Constitutional lawyers to defeat net neutrality. It could take years but it might actually be possible.
Net Neutrality = Obamacare for the Web.
You're right. Makes one wonder if these types are really conservatives.
“””You’re right. Makes one wonder if these types are really conservatives.””””
Our, they do not fully understand what “net neutrality” in the context of this proposed law means.
Net neutrality is anything but neutral. It’s a hat tip to ISPs and big Internet presences like Verizon and Google. They’ve already won court battles that state they have the right to offer tiered Internet connectivity where people can pay a premium for better throughput to providers like NetFlix. Google is already throttling connectivity to sites like YouTube for people who are not subscribers and/or are not using one of their preferred ISPs such as Verizon. It’s disgusting.
Further, let’s all understanding that the government’s goal is to treat Internet connectivity as a utility like the Bells. They want to regulate their existence to dictate cost and connectivity and get their money-grubbing hands into the business of taxing connectivity to make more money. You see the results every month in your telephony bills whether they’re landline or cellular, and they want to do the same to your ISP. With more and more providers going to cloud-based resources (i.e. Amazon’s AWS, Microsoft’s Azure, etc.), and with the explosion of growth and use of video providers such as Hulu, YouTube, and NetFlix, the government sees a target-rich environment for a tax windfall that would make everyone in DC very, very rich.
“Before your eyes glaze over...”
To the author: if eyes are glazing over it is because you are a boring and bad writer.
I learned little from this and nothing technical was even touched on.
Bfl
It's not the government that is promulgating this lie.
It's the wireless bandwidth providers, who are pricing bandwidth as if it's an irreplaceable physical resource, like helium or 1966 Shelby Mustangs. A resource that has to be measured and sold using the electronic equivalent of an eye dropper.
When I see a 100GB/month plan for under $50, like many other countries have, I'll believe otherwise.
Some want more bandwith at no added costs...like the ‘free’ healthcare they get in Cuba.
Time for another Algore USF on our phone bills!
I guarantee that the ISPs who want government regulation want it because they can make WAY more money off you in a regulated environment where they can play grease-the-pig than dealing with consumers in an open market. A lie is a lie and we have the power...don’t bring government into this.
I’m hard pressed to think of anything that the U.S. government regulates in the commercial market that is substantially improved. I’m sure there must be a rare example or two, but none that I can think of right now.
Sow “Govt” on most anything in the private arena and you will likely reap a bitter harvest.
Interesting tack you take.
Did you write the article?
Excellent explanation, but the lefties here are determined to take all away from the people that really did invent and build the internet.
>> “Yet you will have people on this very board that are supporting this takeover.” <<
.
Baffling, isn’t it!
.
And they call this leftist gripe hole FREE republic?
.
>> "Net Neutrality = Obamacare for the Web" <<
.
B I N G O !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.