Net neutrality is preventing internet service providers (ISP’s) from taking sides when it comes to providing users with content from content providers (CP’s); that’s a lot of using the same few words, which illustrates the apt naming of ISP’s and CP’s, but it is also a little confusing. In simpler terms, net neutrality is keeping the internet even.
An uneven internet would be one on which certain content loaded faster because those content providers are receiving preferred treatment. That preferred treatment could be the result of paying a premium, a special business relationship, or something else, and it is known, formally, as paid prioritization. Paid prioritization is the chief interest at stake when we debate net neutrality.
Those in favor of net neutrality argue that paid prioritization is a way for the giant ISP’s to play favorites, and a CP that doesn’t have a preferred relationship with an ISP is at a disadvantage. This is potentially problematic for a couple of reasons.
First, from a fairness perspective, our biggest ISP’s are vertically integrated throughout the internet-relevant industries, so they have their own associated CP’s that would undoubtedly get the preferred treatment without net neutrality. This would put other CP’s at a business disadvantage, regardless of what the end user wants, and stinks a little bit of monopoly.
Second, from an innovation perspective, CP’s just starting out would have trouble breaking into the “fast lane” (the paid prioritization lane), resulting in a negative feedback loop: more difficult to get new customers -> less money -> less paid prioritization -> fewer new customers, ad inf.
Opponents to net neutrality largely support a freer market approach, arguing that the industry innovation is really occurring at the ISP’s, and that government regulation will impede progress. They argue that if customers are unhappy with a particular ISP’s prioritization (e.g. slowing down Netflix), they will switch to a different ISP and the natural market forces will eventually lead to the best distribution of ISP resources.
The problem with that reasoning is that many people in America don’t have the freedom to choose between ISP’s – you’re stuck with whoever has the infrastructure developed in your area. This characteristic of the telecom industry illustrates that it is very similar to other “natural monopolies” in the US, and so it requires government regulation.
Monopolies are one of capitalism’s market failures and are dealt with by government regulation. Natural monopolies occur when it makes the most sense for just one company to develop infrastructure in a geographical area. You don’t want four different cable companies all digging their own cable lines to every house in a neighborhood – it would be a waste of resources. But if there’s only one company that provides cable in that neighborhood, they could charge customers exorbitant amounts of money for their service because there would be no competition. That’s why government regulation is important for natural monopolies – the government can ensure a fair price for customers.
The internet requires a serious amount of infrastructure, so a natural monopoly makes sense, but it’s important that the government has a hand in how ISP’s conduct business.
I read all of the arguments against net neutrality, and they were all across the board.
David Cohen, an executive at Comcast, argues that the government can’t possibly keep up with modern technology so they shouldn’t bother trying to regulate it. The executives at Comcast likely no little about the technology their company uses to actually provide people with internet, but they know enough to make important decisions, which they learn from the people below them who actually know how the stuff works. Likewise, politicians don’t need to know how every piece of the puzzle fits together, they just need someone who does get it to explain to them the big picture.
Grant Babcock argues that since there is “no dire threat to freedom hinging on [net neutrality],” it is not the government’s business to be involved. I guess he probably has bigger qualms with the government, though, than net neutrality. Like NASA’s $19 billion budget in 2016, or the fact that the government pays for highways.
The crown jewel, however, was Jeffrey Dorfman’s invective against net neutrality. He expressed annoyance with “poor analogies” surrounding net neutrality, and then gave us these:
We win from having multiple flavors of ice cream in the store. We benefit from the large variety of cars available for purchase. The fact that most people cannot afford some of those models does not mean they should be removed from sale. Similarly, the fact that some businesses or consumers may choose to pay for better access to the Internet is not a bad thing. Some people pay more to fly first class, but they do not interfere with my travel in coach.
They have pretty much nothing to do with net neutrality.
pat73hat 