Net Neutrality

Sigh... I really do not want to comment on this.

It's never a good idea to get political; getting political makes people who don't agree with your views stop consuming your content, and people who agree with your values pressure you into saying things that you do not want, which will cause all of the previous.

I will try to be as unbiased as possible.

I live in the United States, so I will be writing from an American perspective, and using current events in American politics; however, this is still an issue that applies to everyone.

What is Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must treat all [legal] traffic on the Internet equally; no service receiving better or worse treatment.

What is a violation of net neutrality

Take a person who desires to search Google for "hilarious cats failing jumps" or whatever. With net neutrality in place, the person's ISP is forced to treat Google equally as all other traffic.

The Internet service provider knows that they will not receive any additional funds from Google or their customer. Without net neutrality, the ISP can do three things to make money off of their customer or Google; they could charge their customer extra for accessing Google, they can redirect their customers to a search engine that they themselves make money from, or they could charge Google a fee to allow people to access its services.

This has happened before. In 2014, Comcast started to slow down Netflix's speeds. Comcast argued that Netflix was costing Comcast extra money, and should compensate them. The graph below shows the speed of Netflix over different Internet service providers over time.

graph of Netflix's speeds over different ISPs

Netflix ultimately had to pay Comcast because they were losing customers.

Another Violation of Net Neutrality

Verizon provides their customers with video streaming from select services. Many people do not think this is a violation of net nutrality, but it is. The intent of net neutrality is to provide an equal chance for all services on the internet. This scenario does exactly that; customers will prefer the services that don't count to their data limit, which will hinder other services, and thus leave them out from an equal chance. I'm sure that Verizon would be happy to provide other services with this advantage as long as they pay for it, but the services that are related to Verizon would be able to provide the services they own with a cheaper service, which will provide them with an unfair advantage.

The Argument for Net Nutrality

The Internet has the ability to allow for communication faster than any other system in history. The Internet allows for data to be securely transfered through encryption. The Internet allows for information to be found with a few seconds of typing that would otherwise would take the better part of an afternoon to find. The Internet allows for services to be anonymously published and accessed through The Onion router. The Internet allows for people on opposite sides of the planet to interact with one another in virtual world. The Internet allows for information necessary for safety to be communicated effectively. The Internet allows for thousands of people to come together and create a giant collaborative piece of pixel art. The Internet allows for ideas to get heard, and not just those from popular scores through community services like Medium. The Internet allows for a decentralized system of money. The Internet allows for a unstoppable world computer. The Internet allows for people to get live-updating directions so they get where they need to go faster. The Internet allows for collaboration to be infinitely faster. The Internet allows for a decentralized, anonomous direct democracy.

Oh, the Internet also allows for easy access to cat videos, porn, and memes.

Without net neutrality, all of the above is threatened.

The Internet is arguably mankind's single most important resource, and without it, most of the commodities we enjoy today would never have been conceived.

The Arguement Against Net Nutrality

Some people will argue that regulations limit freedom. This is sometimes true, and sometimes false; with the case of net neutrality, this argument is false. Eliminating the net neutrality regulation will allow the ISPs themselves to limit their customers freedom.

A third of Americans have only one option for an ISP. The ISPs who have a monopoly in the area have no reason to uphold net neutrality, and to make less profit than they could be if they don't uphold net neutrality. The fix to this is to add more ISPs for competition, but starting up an ISP is hard to do; the government could then fund new ISPs, but even if there are two ISPs, they can both not decide to not uphold net neutrality, which does nothing to fix the problem.

Either way, net neutrality provides more freedoms, and more choices for the consumer.

Privacy

Without net nutrality, privacy could be limited. Imagine a world where your ISP would not allow you to use encryption, the ISP would be able to see everything you do, and with the new [United States] law that allows ISPs to sell their customers privacy without consent, the Internet could become unusable.

Even if ISPs don't hinder encryption, nothing is stopping them from forcing you to use services that they can make profit off of selling your personal data there.

This scares me. If our private lives could be sold, governments could buy them, and erode civil liberties. If encryption is crippled, all of our financial detales would be there for the taking.

Even now, I use multiple tools to protect my privacy. I use my VPN to anonomize myself, and to keep my ISP from selling my private life. I use DuckDuckGo, and its onion website when possible, for all searches so my data isn't sold. I use The Onion Router to further anonomize myself. I use Proton Mail, and its onion website when possible, to keep my private life in a place where not even a leak of all the data can reveal any of it.

The FCC and the Future of Net Neutrality in America.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States regulatory commission, meaning that it can make its own regulations and policy.The FCC's chairman, Ajit Pai, is now aiming to roll back the net neutrality rules

In the above interview with David Greene, Pai argued that the net neutrality regulations harm small Internet service providers. In actuality, the regulations help small Internet providers; large Internet providers, who usually have sister streaming services, can get money by favoring their streaming service, and then use some of that money to artificially lower their prices, and force out small competitors. Regulations do make limitations, but without limitations, but limitations themselves can stop from other parties creating their own limitations.

Pai also argued that the Title II regulations made in the Roosevelt administration designed to limit the AT&T monopoly are not designed for the dynamic Internet. The Internet and Telephone systems are not at all very different; both systems provide for communication for a broad user base.

Pai also said that the goal for the FCC is to uphold a free internet, but because he thinks the net neutrality isn't sophisticated enough, Pai said that the FCC will impose specific regulations. I do not believe the FCC will be able to impose specific regulations that the consumers want; bureaucracies are known to be slow, and Pai does not seem to support the consumers, and wants to help the monopolistic companies.

Is Net Neutrality Important

Yes, net neutrality is the best policy for protecting an open and free internet, which is arguably something that is wanted. Without net nutrality, the Internet could turn from the ultimate recourse to the ultimate money-maker for monopolies, and a privacy violator.