Net Neutrality- Another Confusing Power Grab by the Powers that Be
Whenever anyone mentions the term “net neutrality”, immediately a million different explanations as to what exactly it is are thrown out. It’s taken me a couple of days of research just to begin to understand what exactly is meant by the term, and what it means for the future of the internet. Simply put, it calls for new regulations on broadband internet service. Now you ask, what exactly does this mean and what does it have to do with me? It indirectly affects the consumer in that network owners would not be able to provide higher speed or more capacity for Internet sites or services that may need them. Broadband companies pay for the backbone of the internet, and it costs them a lot of money to keep up with the influx of internet sites and users.
Where net neutrality comes into play, or rather the government and the FCC come into play, is at what point do the broadband providers have the ability to limit the amount of traffic going to a particular site. Take google for example, one of the largest search engines on the internet, under net neutrality, they would be able to use as much bandwidth they wanted at the expense of the broadband provider, under the guise of “fairness”. The FCC would then be able to regulate how the “internetz” is distributed so to speak, by forcing the private ISPs to foot the bill so everyone can have the same amount of access to the internet. Sound familiar? You know the government stepping in and saying, ‘we must do this for your own good!’ They did it with the home lending market, the automotive industry, and of course healthcare (just about everything in our society is regulated to a certain extent). The truth of the matter is there hasn’t really been an issue with ISPs censoring or controlling flow of traffic to certain sites. It seems yet again Big Brother just wants to embellish the situation to the point where they insist they must take over.
Needless to say the attempts at legislation up to this point have been so nebulous and confusing, not much has happened with regards to regulation. The two giants at the head of the issue, who would both be the most affected by regulation, Google and Verizon, have recently joined together and proposed an outline that might resolve the contentious debate over the open internet. I will quickly summarize the key points of the proposal: Consumer Protections- The broadband ISP would not be allowed to prevent the activities of its users, unless it harms the network. Non-Discrimination Requirement- The broadband ISP could not discriminate in any way against content. Transparency- The broadband ISP would be responsible for communicating exactly what their offerings are to the consumer. Network Management- The broadband ISP would have the power to mitigate the network based on traffic flow, by whatever means they deem the best way to ensure quality service to the consumer. Additional Online Services- The provider would be able to offer additional services to the consumer based on speed and availability, however subject to an FCC annual review to determine if said services are threatening the availability of internet services to the consumer. Wireless Broadband- The transparency principle would only apply to wireless broadband at this time. Case-By-Case Enforcement- The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no rulemaking authority with respect to those provisions. Regulatory Authority- Regulatory authorities would not be permitted to regulate broadband Internet access service. Broadband Access for Americans- (This one was worded confusingly to say the very least) In a nutshell just like every other entitlement from the Nanny State, the companies would provide the lines needed to provide the internet to people who couldn’t afford it on their own, albeit through government (taxpayer funds). As of right now Congress has not taken this proposal up yet, but it is the hope of both Google and Verizon that they will.
Bottom line, just like everything else in a capitalist economy, the internet costs money to maintain and progress with regards to technological advances. The 21st century entitlement driven mindset revolves around the idea that every material good should be a human right, even though it is costing someone money to provide. If these broadband providers are to continue to invest in technology and provide us with the next generation of the internet, they need to make sure the government is not going to commandeer everything that they have done and dole it out how they see fit. Hopefully the free market can win this battle, and the quality and the experience of our internet usage will not be degraded by the consistently inept and power hungry government.
- Sharon's blog
- Login or register to post comments