The state of misinformation in our political system is getting pretty ridiculous, and on no issue is this more apparent than the issue of Net Neutrality. Yesterday, Nov. 10, 2011, the Senate blocked an effort to repeal Net Neutrality. The vote was along party lines - Democrats voted to keep it, Republicans voted to remove it.
"While we all understand the importance of an open Internet, I think we can also agree that the growth of the Internet in the last 15 years is an American success story that occurred absent any heavy-handed regulation by the federal regulators in Washington," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
"Net neutrality is not about a government takeover of the Internet, and it is not about changing anything," said Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.). "Net neutrality and the rules the FCC passed are about keeping the Internet the way it is today and the way it has always been."So here we are. Republicans are saying they want to keep the Internet the way it is (everyone can agree that's good right?), and Democrats are saying they want to keep the Internet the way it is.
If the two sides want the exact same thing, how are they diametrically opposed on Net Neutrality? At least one side has to be ignorant or dishonest about what Net Neutrality does. Who do we believe? Who is being dishonest?
I would guess the best place to start, is to look at the actual rules being debated.
I. PRESERVING THE FREE AND OPEN INTERNET
1. Today the Commission takes an important step to preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation, investment, job creation, economic growth, competition, and free expression. To provide greater clarity and certainty regarding the continued freedom and openness of the Internet, we adopt three basic rules that are grounded in broadly accepted Internet norms, as well as our own prior decisions:
i. Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services;
ii. No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and
iii. No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1223/FCC-10-201A1.pdfThese rules mean ISPs have to provide information on their networking practices, and can't block any legal Internet traffic. In other words, it prevents ISPs from altering how the Internet currently works. This is what Franken said it did.
Yet McConnell said, "the Internet in the last 15 years is an American success story that occurred absent any heavy-handed regulation by the federal regulators in Washington."
Can they both be right? Well, actually yes. The rules won't change how the Internet works, but if there is no reason for these rules, then this is just more unnecessary government regulation. It's the classic example of fixing a problem that doesn't exist. (PS: keep this phrase in mind for later: "the rules won't change how the Internet works.")
So why the new rules, FCC? What changed?
This is what changed: in 2007 Comcast asserted that it had the right to throttle its cable customers’ traffic - not based on the amount of traffic, but rather where that traffic originated (in this case it was from BitTorrent file sharing). The FCC said, "You can't do that. All traffic has to be treated equally." Comcast responded, "And you can't tell me what to do." Comcast throttles BitTorrent
How was this a change? Traditionally, customers buy Internet access that allows them to receive a certain amount of traffic every month, an amount that is based on the level of service that they purchase. Never before were restrictions placed on the type or source of the traffic. Comcast literally altered the traditional method of routing Internet traffic. The new FCC rules were an attempt to stop that change.
Since everyone agrees that the way the Internet has worked the last 15 years is good (right?), and these new rules attempt to stop a change to that system, why is anyone against it? Because government regulation is bad, silly! Also, perhaps, lobbying money. They say it is costly for companies to comply with regulation, and this cost will result in a weaker economy and job losses. But are the costs of these regulations so high, that it isn't worth preserving how the Internet works? Let's pretend they are. Then why don't the Republicans acknowledge that and stop pretending that they are preserving the Internet? They aren't preserving the Internet, they are attempting to prevent regulation that preserves the Internet. They are doing the opposite of preserving the Internet.
Another argument is that this will give government control over the Internet. That the government will be able to restrict content it doesn't like. Yet the FCC rules explicitly prohibit that sort of behavior. In order for the FCC to restrict content with Net Neutrality, it has to violate the rules. Now on the other hand, in order for the FCC to restrict content without Net Neutrality, it has to violate the rules. Think about that. For the FCC to restrict content, with our without Net Neutrality, it has to violate the rules. Rules that specifically state one cannot block lawful websites, cannot give any authority to block lawful websites. Quite the opposite in fact!
Remember how I said to keep this in mind: "the rules won't change how the Internet works." How much do you think it costs a company to NOT change the only set of rules they've ever used? Are they going to have to hire new network administrators to NOT change their routing tables? Are they going to buy new equipment to NOT change how their current equipment works? Are programmers going to have to write new code that does NOT change how current code operates?
Now I ask again, how much do you think it costs a company to NOT change the only set of rules they've ever used? Nothing - unless you consider the profit lost from being unable to give some traffic advantage over other traffic.
One of the amazing aspects of the Internet is how some inspired college kid can make a social networking site in his dorm room, and 6 years later challenge Google for the number of daily page hits. That is entrepreneurship personified. The Internet's level playing field is critical for encouraging so many new and valuable ideas to flourish within it.
How can this entrepreneurial spirit continue if a large ISP can unilaterally decide to block or restrict any new idea that pops up on the Internet, only to give their own version of that idea an advantage?
How could a college kid in a dorm room compete with Comcast? And if they can't, why would they bother?
PS, if you haven't yet figured out the answer to the question, "who is being dishonest?" - it's the Republicans.
