Net neutrality

Maybe you’re a bit confused about this.

The term sounds like something good – I mean, “neutrality” is usually a good thing, right?  If you subscribe to Netflix or another streaming service, they want you to write your legislators in support of net neutrality.  And if you’re someone who has built an extensive music and movie library from “free” stuff you downloaded online, you’re all in favor of it. 

Or maybe, like a lot of folks, you just can’t see how net neutrality makes a damn bit of difference to you.  You can’t understand what all the fuss is about.   

That’s what proponents of net neutrality are counting on. 

Net neutrality is actually a very big deal. For the record, I am opposed to it. 

Net neutrality is not about “fairness,” as many proponents claims. It’s about taking advantage of what other companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have built – and yes, they did build it, with billions of their shareholders’ dollars – and preventing them from controlling what they built.

It will convert what are now shareholder-owned assets into public property and effectively hand those over to government regulators and politicians to manage.  If there’s a more egregious recent example of “unlawful taking” by the government I can’t think of one off hand. 

What are we talking about here?

Proponents and critics both throw around that it’s about “the Internet.”  It is, and it isn’t – it’s actually about Internet access speeds to customers of one of the Internet access providers. Think Time-Warner, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and the other firms that you use to connect to web sites like Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, or NaughtyNurses.com.

What these access providers give you is space on their pipeline to send and receive data at a certain speed. Granted, these pipelines are now huge, but only after the providers invested billions in new technology and in running fiber and cable from their operations to your address. It costs them billions more each year to continually upgrade capacity, also known as bandwidth.    

Yet prices for bandwidth – on a Mbps (megabits per second) basis – continue to fall.  My business is paying less today for 100-times the bandwidth we had only a few years ago, for example.  Bandwidth is an amazing bargain for consumer and business end users. 

But as bandwidth has gotten cheaper, web marketers and services – legitimate and nefarious – have jumped in to suck up the bandwidth.

The idea of downloading a two-hour movie in the 4 GB range would have been unthinkable a few years back; it would have taken hours or even days. However, that’s what Netflix users do all the time.  Several music services offer real-time streaming over the Internet.  Some music and movie pirate sites allow their audiences to steal copyrighted materials in unlimited quantities. 

Make no mistake, demand for bandwidth is expanding exponentially. Those offering or pulling /stealing massive files every minute of every day are spiking this demand. The main reason is that it doesn’t cost them anything extra. A weasel in his mom’s basement can pull HD movies off porn sites around the clock; if he has a grandfathered unlimited data plan he can suck all the bandwidth he wants—which is why many providers don’t offer those anymore. The same goes for the porn sites he’s patronizing; bandwidth is dirt cheap.   

Many access providers want to be able to charge a premium to sites, like Netflix, whose main business is delivering huge files to subscribers, to ensure that a site’s subscribers get faster download speeds. The providers also want greater latitude to throttle down access speeds to those who suck a lot of bandwidth, like our proverbial weasel in his mom’s basement. 

Honestly, I don’t blame them.

They built it. They own it. They have plenty of competition to keep them honest.  And they have the right to reap the rewards from their investment. You may bitch about your monthly bill, but what they built is certainly better than listening to the modem mating call and watching our computer screens paint one character at a time.   

Proponents of net neutrality are a mixed bag of commercial entities that want to preserve their free ride, looney leftists, anti-capitalists, moochers and politicians (admittedly redundant). 

I understand why companies like Netflix and others like them want to keep things as they are. The overwhelming majority of their business is online.  The Apple iTunes store is the same.  Online music and video download services have practically zero distribution expense.  Their support for net neutrality is based on economic self-interest. 

Publicly though, the net neutrality pitch appears more altruistic:  FCC regulators and politicians need to step in to save the “free” Internet and prevent providers from creating a two-tiered system. If they don’t, the Internet will no longer be “free” and available to everyone equally.    

In this case, appearances are very deceiving. 

There’s nothing altruistic about net neutrality.  It’s a power grab, plain and simple, by politicians and regulators who want to turn all the providers into public utilities. Why? Because once something is a public utility, politicians and regulators have total control. They can dictate what services have to be provided to whom and for how much. They can require that certain classes of customers get free or reduced-cost services. They can also decide what’s allowed and what isn’t. 

Wonder why your utility bills are so high? Go ahead, pull one out and take a look – it makes no difference whether it’s your electric bill, your phone bill, or water bill. Look at the cost-recovery charges to offset the free or dirt-cheap services regulators make your utility provide to low-income consumers.  See the additional charges and special taxes to offset other giveaways. 

This is what happens when politicians and regulators control a “utility.”  It’s no longer about providing reliable service at a fair price to everyone; it’s about using the utility as another social welfare program for purely political purposes. One-time luxuries like air conditioning, cable TV, and cell phones with data packages become subsidized entitlements paid for by others. 

The FCC and politicians already control the public airwaves, which gives them incredible power over broadcast TV as to what’s allowed, what appears, who can be owners, and how much free time must be given to “community” programming.  By extension, they also have control over the wireless spectrum, which allows them to control cell service providers. 

But controlling the Internet is the ultimate wet dream for politicians and regulators. 

They can choose winners and losers. They can require that selected classes get free broadband hookups, setups, and service. They can raise rates on others to pay for that. They can diddle with the economics to force providers they don’t like out of business, and to subsidize providers they favor. I can envision a special tax treatment for a provider that invests in wind turbines, powers their offices with solar, or makes their service techs drive hybrids, for example. 

But there are other, scarier possibilities.   

They can then control which sites are allowed and which are blocked. They can snoop on the public to their hearts’ delight and monitor everybody’s online activities. In case you weren’t aware, access providers already keep track of every site and web page you visit, when, and how long you stay there, plus your private e-mail, online chat room discussions, and more.  Now imagine sharing all that with your government. 

Creepy, huh?  Kind of like China …

Look, net neutrality is a Trojan Horse.  It’s not about keeping the Internet “free.”  It’s about the exact opposite – putting the Internet under the control of politicians, politically appointed regulators, and faceless bureaucratic hacks. 

I’d rather rely on the motives of a handful of access providers – who can be held accountable – than on the motives of politicians and regulators who can’t. 

Don’t fall for it.