Except did you ever notice that the loudest advocates of net neutrality are all heavy bandwidth users, and that Net Neutrality rallies are always, ALWAYS concentrated on the web? Have you ever seen, even one time, say, a Net Neutrality rally in the streets of a major city? No? Weird, isn't it?
Indeed, from Teen Vogue to The Washington Post to GameInformer.com, liberal opinion is united in its support of net neutrality. But on its face, net neutrality is absurd. The idea that internet service providers should be forced to provide unlimited access to content transmitted indiscriminately whether it is old episodes of Sesame Street, pornographic videos of simulated rape, or a column at The Week, makes as much sense as saying that a brewing company should be able to suck up all the water in a river so long as people like drinking it. We do not force bookstores to stock certain volumes or restaurants to prepare every conceivable dish. The prospect of a segregated internet in which much of the crap now gumming up the works remains legal but available only to those willing to pay a premium to access it is a welcome one.
And that right there is the crux of the issue. Net Neutrality advocates want others to subsidize their unlimited bandwidth under the monniker of "Internet freedom". Would anyone be so brazen as to suggest others subsidize their heavy driving habits by insisting upon a set monthly rate for gasoline? Their heavy drinking habits by insisting upon a set monthly rate for alcohol? Or even more specifically, that premium channels like HBO all instantly become "free" because hey, it's not fair we don't have "TV freedom" or "TV neutrality"? And yet, we see this kind of behavior all the time from Net Neutrality advocates, who have to disguise their selfishness as an opposition to ISPs and corporate greed.
By placing companies like Comcast and Verizon under Title 2 regulations and treating them like utilities, Net Neutrality advocates are the biggest advocates of Comcast and Verizon that the world has ever seen! When was the last time your local water utility or power utility company felt like it had to compete or demonstrated some game changing innovation? If you answered never, then congrats because that's the new standard that Net Neutrality advocates have been creating for the Comcasts and Verizons of the world. So when they accuse others of being in the pocket of ISPs, point out to them that Title 2 regulations effectively shield Comcast and Verizon from effective competition for pretty much...forever.
Speaking of corporate shills, is anyone a bigger corporate shill than a Net Neutrality advocate? Do they even pretend otherwise at this point? After all, their talking points are identical to Facebook, Google/Youtube, and Netflix's talking points, aren't they? Why would Facebook, Google/Youtube, and Netflix want unlimited subsidized bandwidth? Hmm....it's a real head scratcher....
So we've got some of the most profitable corporations in the entire world, who also happen to be amongst the heaviest bandwidth users in the entire world. But rather than acknowledge that unlimited streaming capabilities isn't a "thing" (because infrastructure costs money), they've decided to enlist the help of Net Neutrality advocates to shill for them to insist ISPs provide them unlimited subsidized bandwidth. C'mon, you must be exaggerating? Is Net Neutrality really just a means for wealthy bandwidth users and corporations to help themselves to unlimited bandwidth that gets subsidized by everyone else?
Actually, yep, pretty much. But don't take my word for it.
The story begins back in March, when the strictly legal debate over the FCC’s limited authority over broadband ISPs first turned toxic with inflammatory statements from Netflix CEO Reed Hastings on the company’s blog.
The 2010 rules, even if reinstated, were too “weak,” Hastings wrote. “A stronger form of net neutrality is required,” he insisted, to “prevent ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix” and other dominant content providers. To protect the Internet, he wrote, the FCC must force ISPS to provide Netflix “sufficient access to their network without charge.”
Poor Netflix. It's too bad they're struggling to make ends meet these days. Good things they've enlisted an army of "Net Neutrality" advocates (who totally, totally AREN'T corporate shills) to do their bidding. Once combined, they dress up their selfishness under clever marketing slogans so nobody has to think too hard about the issue...brilliant! Net Neutrality has always been a sham by self-serving parties. You'd expect that from a company like Netflix or Facebook though. What's sadder is the Net Neutrality advocate that becomes a corporate toadie simply because they don't want to pay slightly more a month to download and stream old episodes of "Party of Five" all day long.
Ajit Pai and the FCC want it to be legal for Comcast to block BitTorrent.
This is what happens when you’re honest about killing net neutrality
Yes folks, if Net Neutrality goes away, one day the poor folks who download porn through BitTorrent all day long might actually have to pay for the luxury of doing so! The horrors!
In all seriousness, what we need is competition. Perhaps some anti-trust action against Comcast, Verizon and the like is appropriate. So let's look into that!
But it looks like we've now gone back to that horrible, horrible time of the pre-Net Neutrality days...all the way back to....2015. Yep, 2 years ago....when your Internet was fine and the world didn't end.
Net Neutrality is dead. And let's hope it stays that way.