Net Neutrality

It's easy for me to decide how I regard the FCC's proposed net neutrality regulations. All I need to do is see who is in favor of them. Beyond the fact that the term "net neutrality" is an appropriation of language for political reasons, much like "marriage equality."

Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted that she was "optimistic about strong new rules to protect a free & open Internet, but nothing is official until the FCC votes." The FCC is made up of three Democrats and two Republicans. We know how they are going to vote.

Mozilla Corp tweeted, "Big news on #NetNeutrality today. 21 days left to speak out and guarantee victory." Mozilla is a social justice organization masquerading as a tech company.

So is Wired Magazine. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler made his announcement in an op-ed in today's Wired. It reads like a petulant missive from a jilted former lover. "I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way," he writes. "NABU was delivering service at the then-blazing speed of 1.5 megabits per second...but NABU went broke while AOL became very successful."

Ars Technica is another publication that cloaks its social justice activism with a nerdy gloss. They tweeted today that "Verizon is mad that its huge net neutrality gamble backfired." In other words, a taunting, "You mad, bro?"

I'm no fan of my cable company, or my cell phone carrier. But I'm not under the mistaken impression that there is no competition. I can take my television to AT&T and there are several wireless carriers to choose from. Why shouldn't a carrier be able to charge Netflix more for traffic prioritization? They have to build out capacity.

The Daily Beast published an article last year about Net Neutrality. Entitled, "Killing Net Neutrality Kills The Dreams of Young Entrepreneurs." Not much nuance there. Columnist Joshua Dubois tells the imaginary story of "a young, Black, (yes black was capitalized) male 6th grader... from the far west side of Detroit." His dream of starting a "radical new video service," would be stillborn because "he'll have to pay Comcast or Verizon an exorbitant fee."

The key word there is "service." What the young techie is engineering is a web service. No different from Wikipedia. If Wikipedia added a widget that offered a "radical new video service," it would still not be considered a utility.

The reason NABU failed was that they didn't have a way to get their users that last mile. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, any common carrier would have been compelled to allow NABU access to their network. All they would have needed was a NABU-compliant modem. NABU's failure tells us nothing about traffic prioritization.

All Title II common carrier regulation will ensure is lower investment in carrier infrastructure, and the heavy hand of government involved in regulating the internet. Seems to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, Senator Cruz, Net Neutrality is the "Obamacare For The Internet."