No “Net Neutrality” Is Not The End Of The Internet World.

You’ve probably seen the hysterical headlines that the FCC in voting to end the so called “Net Neutrality” rules, the internet as we know it is going to end.

Democrats have said they will seek to overturn the vote, but the problem is that the FCC vote was taken under the same rules that were used to pass “Net Neutrality” in 2015 by the Obama Administration.

On Friday, Senator Charles Schumer of New York said he would force a vote on the FCC action under the Congressional Review Act. Republicans scuttled internet privacy rules adopted under the Obama administration using the same procedural vehicle.

“Net Neutrality” is the idea that internet service providers cannot treat content from different sites differently.

On the surface, that sounds like a great deal and a good idea. Who doesn’t want all data sent across the internet treated the same way.

Lots of people.

There are basically two groups within the internet that are on opposing sides to the idea of net neutrality. The first set is the content providers like NetFlix, YouTube, Google, etc. They want all data to be treated the same. The companies that built the internet such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc say that they should be able to charge more for sites that use massive amounts of data.

There is, in our opinion, a lot of hypocrisy on the side that says “ISP’s should not be able to restrict speeds.” Companies like NetFlix charge more for HD / 1080p content than their standard service. So the money that people pay for the higher quality and more required speeds goes to the content creator, rather than the ISP’s that are actually carrying and delivering the data.

We saw one debate on a board where a proponent of net neutrality claimed that restricting or requiring people to pay more for being in the “internet fast lane” is the same as charging people and different vehicles more for being in a fast lane.

Except that is exactly what happens in the real word. Toll roads are designed to be faster and people pay to use them. In addition, many states reserve “high speed lanes” which people can pay for going faster than the accompanying, side by side traffic.

If one wants to make the analogy between real world highways and the internet superhighway, a tractor trailer would be the equivalent of a high data user while smaller vehicles would be standard data users. There is no argument that large trucks pay more to use the roads in real life than cars because of the wear and tear on the roads they create. So why not apply that to data on the internet?

Pro net neutrality people will say that no net neutraility will harm innovation and smaller companies on the internet.

After all, sites like NetFlix, Facebook, SnapChat, Google, YouTube etc., were all created after the Net Neutrality rules were passed in 2015.

Except none of those companies were created after 2015. All were created before the Net Neutrality rules were passed.

How did we ever survive without more Obama era requlations?

Some have called “Net Neutrality” a “solution in search of a problem.”

We agree.

That principle was demonstrated by an interview conducted by MSNBC anchor Ali Velshi and former FCC commissioner Robert McDowell.

As McDowell notes, there are laws in place that already prevent what the supposed “Net Neutrality” rules were to accomplish. However, there are key differences. The main one being that when the FCC institutes rules, those rules carry the weight of law but are made by unelected officials. Contrast that with laws that are made by Congress (as per the Constitution) and by elected officials.\

The discussion does not go well for MSNBC’s Velshi, who exclaims at one point:

Look, I just feel like we’re having a really unfair conversation here, I’m trying to have a conversation on the merits of the principle of unintended consequences,” Velshi whined. “And you’re dropping a lot of legal-ese.”

“The legal-ese is the merits though, Ali,” McDowell asserted. “That’s what’s at play here, and maybe you haven’t read these laws.”

“I’m very familiar with net neutrality,” Velshi snarked back. “I’m really not that familiar with being condescended to.”


McDowell tried to repeat Velshi’s argument back to him, stating, “okay so you’re talking about consumers and entrepreneurs and discrimination of your own products, like a Comcast provider?”

“That’s NOT what I’m telling you!” Velshi claimed, even though earlier in the interview he was talking about companies giving preferential treatment to their own products.

McDowell shook his head incredulously, as Velshi exclaimed that they would need to revisit their conversation at another time.

“I’m saying that if someone has an advantage in streaming their content over the internet…because they got the money to buy better…access,” Velshi said, “then the incumbent is favored over the startup, that’s the only point I wanted to make!”

“And that would be illegal, that’s the point I’m making,” McDowell responded. “It has been a for a long time and will be going forward, so it’s good news.”

“Sorry it’s good news,” he finished. “I know it’s good clickbait to say the internet is being destroyed and it’s not.”

The problem is that Velshi, like so many, are responding to meme’s and talking points rather than the state of the law. Velshi doesn’t want to hear that the law prevents the very scenarios Velshi is trying to use to say the FCC’s vote is wrong and the end of the internet.

Facts really bother liberals and they get increasingly frustrated when they are shown to wrong.

Comments are closed.