Net Neutrality

     The Trump Administration has directed the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to relax its "Net Neutrality (NN)" regulations, which were implemented back in 2005.  Congress is presently debating whether or not to enact nation-wide regulations requiring NN.  Meanwhile, several states have enacted, or considering, their own NN regulations.

     So just what the heck is NN, and how does it affect you?  According to Wikipedia, NN is the principle that "Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all Internet communications equally and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, or method of communication." 

     It's a confusing and somewhat technical topic.  Although  recent nationwide polls show about 60% of voters want it, an interesting side note is that about a quarter of respondents said "don't know/no opinion", which reflects all the confusion and uncertainty on the issue.

     Advocates of NN say that Internet access is a "basic right" that everyone is "entitled" to, similar to a utility, and that the big players of the Internet - Netflix, Google, Facebook, Amazon, YouTube, etc. - should not be able to overpower startups and the other "little guys" trying to become the Internet's Next Big Thing.

     Well, my faithful readers should know by now where I stand:

     (Sticking out my tongue and making a disgusting sound.)  NN stinks, and here's why:    

     To begin, let's clarify what an Internet Service Provider (ISP) actually is:  they are a business that consumers (that's you) pay to bring the Internet into their home or business.  It's a tough and very competitive business that requires coughing up a lot of money for equipment and infrastructure before a dime of revenue comes in.  And like any business, their profit is based on the quality of their service and its price.  Better quality + lower price = more profit!

      And like any business, they flourish best in a free market where government bureaucrats and other do-gooders (who think they know more than those who actually run it) just get the heck out of the way and let the owners run the business as they see fit.  So if an ISP (or any other business) can figure out a way to make their customers happier or reduce their costs, I got no problem with that, so long as it's honest and voluntary.  (More on that shortly.)

      NN advocates like we need it so that consumers can access their "preferred content" without bias or preferential treatment.  But hold on a minute:  for most internet end-users, their "preferred content" IS Amazon, Facebook, et al!  That's what consumers want!  The whole NN argument puts the ISPs into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

    Meanwhile, at the other end of the "preferred content" spectrum lies a host of web content that a lot of consumers DON'T want.  The list includes porn, adware, malware, hate-mongering, misinformation, and all the other garbage that proliferates out there on the web.  If an ISP wants to "discriminate" against web trash, and use that in their marketing to attract customers, then I got no problem.  Better for the ISP to make that call than some nanny-state government bureaucrat.

      One of the aspects of NN that doesn't get mentioned often is that is prohibits ISPs from negotiating payment contracts with web content providers.  Thus, if your ISP wants to charge extra bucks to YouTube or Netflix because they eat up the lion's share of available bandwidth, well, under NN rules, that's a crime.  One must understand that bandwidth is like any other economic resource:  it has limited supply but unlimited demand.  Fortunately, Internet bandwidth, unlike tangible real estate, CAN be increased, but that costs money.  In an unregulated Internet, ISPs could use the revenue from content-providers such as Google and Facebook to invest in their infrastructure, or reduce their costs.  Either way, it promotes competition among ISPs, and the end consumer (that's you) benefits!  (See this article.)

      There is nothing at all dishonest about businesses - such as web content providers and web service providers - drawing up contracts to buy and sell services.  It happens zillions of times a day, all over the world.  It's called the Free Market, and it works.  But NN rules constrict it.

      Finally, keep in mind that it is not the government's responsibility to protect you from competition, or "promote competition", or anything along those lines.  See my article.  A business should succeed or fail based on its own merits.  The government should provide neither help nor hindrance to any business, on the Internet or elsewhere.  If any business startup creates a superior product or website, or the Internet's Next Big Thing, it will succeed.  We don't need someone to come around claiming "we're from the government, and we're here to help you".   

      And neither does anybody have a "right" to Internet access.  That's just more socialist baloney that has kept so much of the world's population wallowing in poverty for most of human history.  Internet access, just like a utility or any other good or service, costs money, and somebody must pay for it.  As we would say here in Texas:  you ain't got no right to nothing.