Despite what others might say, net neutrality is extremely useful

May 23, 2014 00:21 GMT  ·  By

Internet neutrality is the principle that Internet Service Providers and governments should treat data on the Internet without discriminating or charging differently by user, content, site, platform, app, modes of communication and such. As the word “neutrality” suggests, you just have to treat everyone equally, be they companies trying to provide their content online, or users trying to get to this content.

The notion has been at the center of attention in the past few months. On one hand, the European Union has decided to impose some strict neutrality rules that don’t really leave wiggle room for ISPs to have it their own way.

On the other, there’s the entire discussion on the topic going on in the United States, where a court denied the FCC the right to impose net neutrality rules to ISPs due to their legal status. Ever since then, the Federal Communications Commission has been trying to find a way to ensure that the Internet is kept neutral, although it seems that even the members of the team are starting to forget just what the term means.

Why? Because the proposed deal would allow ISPs to create a fast lane, which companies that require more bandwidth could pay for to get access, like Netflix did with Comcast and Verizon, albeit begrudgingly. This means that the “neutrality” in “net neutrality” vanishes. It’s a pretty easy thing to understand that when you allow companies to set themselves apart by paying for access, you’re creating a misbalance in the market since not all players have pockets deep enough to pay for this.

“Net Neutrality Is a Dumb Idea”

I thought that this was pretty much common sense and that the only ones lobbying against net neutrality were the companies hoping to absorb even more money, namely Internet providers.

Imagine my surprise when I stumbled upon an article in Forbes, which included the words “net neutrality is a dumb idea.”

This seems odd, because the lack of net neutrality prevents tech startups and companies to get funding and to get their products out because they cannot rely on fast Internet connections. It’s also odd because without net neutrality – since what the FCC is currently trying to do cannot be considered within the limits of this principle –, ISPs would basically be allowed to do whatever they wanted and to get rich without actually providing the service they’re suppose do be providing.

Comcast and Time Warner Cable, two companies that want to merge, have been dubbed the most hated ISPs in the United States. Comcast, for its part, has replied to a message from Netflix that in order to provide the necessary bandwidth for the service, they’d have to adjust their infrastructure, and who was going to pay for that?

Well, technically, the answer to that question is the company’s own problem. This is an Internet Service Provider that is supposed to offer fast Internet to customers and allow them to access whatever content their hearts desire – that’s their job.

What Comcast wants, and probably other ISPs as well, is for everyone else (companies and customers alike) to chip in to help them do their job properly.

But Forbes’ columnist Gene Marks doesn’t seem to think that the Internet should be neutral. In fact, he compares the Internet to buying two brands of cars for the same price despite the quality difference. “These things are priced differently. They are not neutral. Nothing is neutral in a free market economy. Which is why ‘net neutrality’ is a dumb idea,” he claims.

This seems to be the root of his argument – the fact that Americans live in a free market economy, so nothing should be regulated, regardless of the consequences, because that only leads to the government getting involved and that’s a bad idea.

Isn’t the Internet service in the US bad enough as it is?

He also argues that net neutrality will eventually hurt companies such as Comcast and Verizon and AT&T, which have hundreds of thousands of employees and have invested billions in the infrastructure. Well, that may be so, but perhaps if they had done such a good job, they wouldn’t have ended up at the bottom of the list when it comes to the quality of the services they offer.

Not to mention the fact that countless studies so far have pointed out that the Internet speeds in the United States barely compare to those in the rest of the world, with European and Asian countries leading the list. In fact, the differences are so big that you might as well compare someone on a bicycle to someone driving a high-speed car. So why can it be done there and not in the United States?

Google has been trying to teach ISPs a lesson and has started to provide extremely high Internet speeds for customers in certain cities. Furthermore, the company vowed not to sign any deals with content providers, regardless of whether the FCC modified the proposal or not.

The column also belittles the effects of the lack of net neutrality by saying that the fact that Netflix signed a deal with Comcast and Verizon has indeed reflected in the price, but it was just a dollar. “A year’s worth of Netflix could cost a new user up to $120! What a catastrophe!”

But it’s not just Netflix, of course, it’s a whole list of companies that could eventually have to introduce subscriptions or hike prices if they saw themselves pressed to sign a deal with an ISP or two.

Net neutrality is as much a problem for companies as it is for consumers. And that’s why net neutrality is not a dumb idea.