Net Neutrality

First off, I have to admit a bias here. I have researched this topic before, and actually wrote to the FCC to encourage them to classify ISPs as a telecommunications company under Title II of the Telecommunications act, mentioned in the "Net Neutrality: What You Need to Know Now" article.

So, what is net neutrality? The best analogy I've heard is to treat internet networks the same way roads are treated. For example, UPS, FedEx, etc. can't discriminate against certain packages. They can't charge Amazon more, they can't charge eBay sellers more; etc. Their only job is to move material from point A to point B, they can't discriminate between what they're moving. Similarly, ISPs can't charge Netflix more to use their internet pipes.

A final simplification: When you purchase internet service, you're just purchasing a pipe that serves out bits. You can't be charged more or less for whatever type of bits you get out of that pipe.

The argument for net neutrality is that without this, ISPs can do some ugly stuff. Comcast significantly slowed down Netflix to force them to pay, for example, before the new rules were passed. It's also not hard to imagine a world where you would have to bundle certain internet services as well. "Base internet access is $1,000,000 a month, the Netflix package is $2 billion and YouTube is $1 billion." They could force you to bundle internet coverage the same way they force you to bundle television channels. All without ever actually laying down any more cable.

The argument for net neutrality is that some unnecessary data (Netflix, etc) is overflowing the pipes and important data (healthcare, etc.) is getting slowed down. So the corporations should be able to charge Netflix in order to lay down new cable and build them a fast lane.

My thoughts: The argument against Net Neutrality seems totally bunk to me. If you have a pipe of size X, you can distribute that pipe to N people, then each person pays for a piece of the pipe. Equally distributing this pipe would give everyone in the neighborhood X/N bandwidth. That's a terrible system, but that's not what net neutrality says. The ISPs can divide their bandwidth however they want, based on who pays the most. So everyone pays a certain amount and gets a pipe of a certain size to fit their needs.

So if I'm at home trying to sign up for healthcare (or something else important) and the website is super slow because my brother is using all the bandwidth on Netflix, I don't think "curses, if only the ISP slowed down Netflix for me so that this wouldn't happen." I think "We need to buy a bigger internet pipe" or "Get off Netflix! I'm doing actually important stuff!"

In my opinion, there's no reason to artificially discourage use of Netflix by paying more for it. If I notice the internet slowing down, I'll buy a bigger pipe, which will give ISPs the money they need to lay down more cable. I don't want to be forced to purchase the "Netflix package" to actually enjoy a show.


How to implement it is a much more difficult question. I think the best way would be monitoring internet speeds for certain websites to make sure the ISPs don't slow down one particular site, and responding to any lawsuits. Also monitoring ISP deals and offers to ensure they don't create "The Netflix Package." I don't really care how much this "burdens" Comcast. I'll care once competition is restored, but without competition, someone has to fight the monopoly and enforce burdens.

I don't understand how Net Neutrality prevents innovation. If anything, it supports it. Without neutrality, ISPs could easily charge a fee to every website ever to avoid being massively slowed down. That would make creating a new website much more expensive. Currently, you can set up a website that serves bits as quickly as Google, Facebook, or any other giant. This has lead to a plethora of new and interesting independent sites. The loss of net neutrality could stifle that innovation.


Finally, whether "The Internet is a public service and access should be a basic right." This one is harder. We think that about roads, but roads aren't partially owned by corporations. Perhaps the best example is electricity? But is electricity a "basic right"? (A quick Google shows that electricity being a basic right is still somewhat debated). So on the spectrum of basic rights: Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness: Yup. Electricity: Probably? Taking it away from the country for a long period of time would kill people. Internet: Probably not? Taking it away wouldn't kill people or deprive them of basic rights...yet.

Should it be a public service, regulated like a utility like water or electricity? Probably, and I think it's becoming more necessary. Schools usually assume you have internet access and require it for assignments. Many services are going entirely online, like banking, flight and hotel booking, etc. Soon enough, I posit that internet access will be assumed, and not having a connection will severely impact your ability to function in society (manage finances, file taxes, book trips, buy anything). Therefore, letting corporations pick and choose which (legal) data can go through their Internet pipes sounds like a terrible idea.