Net neutrality is what enabled the Internet boom of the late 90's. Net neutrality was simply a given on the Internet until the ISP market distilled into an oligopoly and the big providers decided to game the system in the interest of squeezing out a few more bucks. The FCC is in the process of implementing regulations that would ensure that net neutrality remains the way of the Internet, as it has traditionally been. These rules are very simple. They allow Internet users to access any legal applications and sites that they choose. They allow Internet providers to implement "reasonable" controls over their network for the purposes of regulating congestion and quality of service, but not for regulating content. The rules also require ISP's to be transparent about their network regulation practices. This last point is key-- during the whole Comcast debacle, the company blocked certain peer-to-peer applications but refused to admit to their users that they had done so, even after several of the users produced unquestionable proof. Imagine if your ISP suddenly decided to block Facebook, and every time you called tech support, they told you that the problem was with the site or with your computer. You can begin to understand the anger that Comcast users felt upon discovering otherwise.
If Internet providers are running out of bandwidth, then there is nothing to prevent them from charging more money to the highest bandwidth consumers. However, blocking an entire class of Internet applications or sites in an attempt to control bandwidth usage is antithetical to the principles on which the Internet was created.
All well and good, but my old pal John McCain is introducing a bill that would block the FCC's nascent net neutrality regulations. His reasoning? That net neutrality will stifle innovation and create economic woes. Well, if that was true, then why didn't net neutrality stifle innovation and create economic woes in the late 90's? Here's the kicker-- The McCain bill is called the "Internet Freedom Act." "Freedom" in this case means "freedom from regulation."
Let me say this once and for all, for the record and the cameras-- freedom from regulation does not equal a free market. If we eliminate all regulation of industry, then industry's natural tendency is to form monopolies. This is not a free market economy, and it does not serve the public interest. The Internet service providers have shown that they are more interested in their own bottom lines than in preserving the last bastion of true capitalism, so it is now up to the government to step in and ensure that the Internet remains a free market.
Talking points:
- Net neutrality does not enable or encourage illegal uses of the Internet, nor does it prevent ISP's from regulating illegal content/sites.
- Net neutrality is the way that the Internet has always worked, until recently.
- Net neutrality does not prevent ISP's from charging as much as they want for bandwidth.
- Net neutrality is not a government takeover of the Internet. It is the government stepping in to ensure that the Internet continues to work the way it always has.
- Net neutrality guarantees that ISP's cannot enact content controls and then lie to their users about it.
