Yesterday’s Decision to Repeal Net Neutrality
For those who don’t know what net neutrality is, or why yesterday’s repeal of it matters, allow me to shed some light, because i have found a majority who are emotionally disturbed by yesterday’s decision who have no idea what it even is when asked to describe it.
First, I will say that both sides of the debate have good arguments. And we agree on a majority of symptoms. My biggest disagreement is in the solution of Net Neutrality.
Second, if in those symptoms we can agree that we cannot trust moral or ethical nature of any one man, then positioning power from one man to another does not actually solve that problem.
What is Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality is designed to be the equalizer of internet service providers (ISP) by “neutralizing” all content as the same and not discriminate or charge differently by user (no matter their location or demand), website, platform (Linux, Windows, Mac, etc.), application (browsers aren’t the same), etc. The argument from the pro-Net Neutrality is that under Net Neutrality ISPs will be unable to block, slow down, or charge more money for specific websites or content. There has been “violations” of Net Neutrality from Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T in the past prior to Net Neutrality which was established in 2015, which were later overturned by public outrage (not the, then, non-existent government regulations).
Repealing Net Neutrality only takes the internet back to the way it was a couple of years ago (prior to 2015); where if you pay more, you can get better quality service (no buffering on videos, etc.).
What’s Wrong with Net Neutrality?
The solution of Net Neutrality gave the government power to regulate the internet. This is a dangerous control that should not be given to one institution, especially one with such political invested interest in the distribution of information to its people. It is much more reasonable to deregulate the internet, prevent further expansion of government overreach, and leave the success and failure the decision of the open market.
Consider a business serving under racism, for instance. If the business caters to only white men, considering the actual minority who agree with white supremacy, and considering the vast majority who would publicly boycott the business in any way possible, what chances do you think that business would have to succeed? Certainly, unless the owner had a vast number of resources to keep the business afloat, and even if he did, he would not be monetarily profiting from his services, his business would fail as a direct result of the open market–not government regulations. The free market simply wouldn’t be willing to bare the burden. It is a competition, after all, and catering to a distasteful minority would ensure their loss.
Also, since the free market is a competition to produce the best products and services evidenced by the consumer’s willingness to pay for it, businesses are invested and driven to innovation and productivity. With Net Neutrality established, that reason to appease the consumer and progress their enterprise through ingenuity diminishes.
Besides that, Net Neutrality, even in theory is ineffective. In metropolises like Dallas, there are heavier traffic needs than in rural areas like San Angelo. This means that smaller ISPs’ will go out of business because their resources will dry up. They will not be able to keep up with the necessary upgrades to keep within Net Neutrality law. This is good for big companies that want to see Net Neutrality maintained, because it effectively removes their competition in “fly over states.”
Net Neutrality is Really a Socialist Agenda in Disguise!
I reject Net Neutrality because I am a Libertarian Conservative who trusts my government to make moral and ethical decisions as much as I trust my five year old to stay at home with her sisters and manage the home for a weekend while her mother and I go out for much needed time alone. I am more agreeable to playing the competition and purchasing the service I am most happy with, and discontinuing my subscription to ISPs who clot my service for any reason, throttle speeds, or block desired sites and services I receive through the internet. The internet is possibly the greatest invention in human history, and I think it is primarily because it has been unregulated by any government agency. Yes, there is legitimate concern with ISP companies taking control of your information. But it is less likely to come from a cluster of competitors who are each looking to gain your business than it is from one institution highly invested in your vote to keep them in power.
“Neutrality” is simply the technological equivalence of civil rights’ “equality” — a misnomer designed to redirect your intentions and support. Ultimately, it comes down to who do you trust more with dissemination – a variety of competing corporations or the U.S. Government?