Skip to main content

Why I Do Not Support Net Neutrality

It's simple, actually:

1. Nothing is free (as in beer)
2. Usually, items that are perceived as free (highways, the Internet, Welfare, Medicare, public safety services, etc.) are paid for by the government
3. The U.S. government gets its funding from its citizens--that is you and me
4. I indirectly (through taxes or through "add-on" cost-recovery fees from corporations) do not want to pay for someone else's Internet service.

If someone wants a faster pipe (or improved routing), that's fine. They can pay for that pipe. But I don't want to pay for their faster pipe. Also, with net neutrality, there's no incentive to improve delivery. If I'm Sprint, Verizon, or AT&T, why would I improve my service? There's no financial incentive. With Net Neutrality, I can't charge more for it. The Internet is not free (as in beer). It's no more free than making a phone call or getting cable TV.

Uncle Sam may have built Arpanet but the communications firms of this country build the modern-day Internet (at least within the U.S.). If I build a building, I should have a right to sell condos in that building for whatever I want. If the market for condos supports what I'm charging, that's great. The government should not be allowed to step in and say, "oh, BTW, every one of those condos has to be priced exactly the same...oh, and they can't exceed this ceiling". That's BS. I made an investment in my building and expect to realize a return on that investment. Otherwise, in the future, I will choose not to build that building and as a result, someone might not have a place to live. (as an extreme example)

This country was built on capitalism and self-reliance. We've grown into a group of complacent, handout-seeking, egalitarians. Save me! Save me! It has to stop. The government's role in this country should be to maintain individual rights, provide law and order, and maintain property rights. Otherwise, the government controls or has a hand in too much of our daily lives. The framers of our constitution never intended Uncle Sam to serve as a bedside nurse--they intended Uncle Sam to provide an environment of freedom and opportunity with a few rules such that its citizens could create and provide for themselves.

Let capitalism and economics do their thing. They usually work things out. Freedom isn't free.

Update 01/23/2007: Several of the founders weigh in against Net Neutrality.


mickosaurus said…
The second assertion that you make -- while true -- is out of place. It has no bearing here. Why? Because customers are the ones paying for the net. When anyone buys (more properly leases) a connection to the Internet, you pay for upload *and* download.

For example:
Let's say that I'm a Comcast cable (AT&T) customer. AT&T decides that OSU (a Sprint customer) should no longer get a "free ride", and they should pay AT&T in order to have video football highlights be delivered to Comcast cable customers.

Why this is bad:
The problem is that I've *already paid* for this data to come to me! My monthly Comcast fees pay for the bandwidth that I consume. What AT&T and their ilk are trying to do is get paid twice for just one service. Imagine if UPS charged both the shipper *and* the receiver for delivering the same package!

But wait! It gets worse!!
I believe you should be able to get what you pay for. This is one of the most fundamental tenants of capitalism. Under tiered pricing, I no longer am able to do this. If the provider isn't willing (or able*) to pay my network carrier; no matter how good of a network connection I pay for, I will always have an artificially degraded experience.

This sort of a money grab is simply outrageous. "Tiered pricing" is nothing but a euphemism for the network carries shaking down the content providers. If network carriers desire more profit, they should charge more for their services, offer new features, or come up with ways to more efficiently run their businesses.

Net neutrality is fair, just, and can ultimately be quite profitable. I sincerely hope you rethink your stand on this issue.

Your last paragraph about capitalism and self-reliance is awesome. We need more who understand and embrace our national spirit. As long as there are those who hold these views, there is hope for the republic.

* not everyone is Google, eBay, or Amazon. The whole web2.0 thing (I feel dirty using that buzzword) is about consumer created content. This tiered pricing structure could very easily choke web2.0 just while it's learning to crawl.
Jeff Hunsaker said…
This is no different than the existing phone system. Both the sender and receiver are charged. The sender pays for the call but the receiver has to at least pay for local service to even accept calls.

Also, capitalism will once again come to the rescue if for example, AT&T charges the recipient of traffic: the commercial recipient will pay for both. Think Amazon will disallow traffic to reach their servers? Heck no. This might be tough on the little guy but let's remember this isn't service or no service; it's mediocre or enhanced service.

With paid monthly service, everyone will get some sort of baseline feature set. With "basic", I can traverse anywhere on the Internet I choose but perhaps not with blazing speed. For $20/month...I'm just fine with that. I experience this today with [evil] SBC. I could be $40 for double the speed but it's not that valuable to me.

Now, if I'm Amazon (or some other Web 2.0 firm ;-), that probably won't cut it. So, I pay AT&T more to get a faster pipe. Firms do this today in the form of leased lines.

I'm continuing my research and hope these analogies are accurate. That said, it has been my experience the path of rational economics, capitalism, and open markets rarely parellels with the sentiments of and the democrats in Congress. and the democrats in Congress remain the strongest net neutrality supporters. Not that the republicans have it figured out either but this situation alone raises the hair on my neck.

Popular posts from this blog

Configuring a Development Sandbox for the Azure CTP

I'm getting up to speed on Azure and the other cloud SDKs and need to configure an environment for development, demos and learning. My experiences... First off, if you've read my blog, you know I haven't installed non-productivity software on my core OS for years . Further, I don't get the warm and fuzzies installing CTP software on my core OS. I also love the recoverability and start-over-from-a-checkpoint features of virtualization. Virtual PC (VPC) houses all my development, demo and learning sandbox instances. So, let's start off with a VPC instance. For this to work well, ideally, you need a good 4GB of memory. Further to the ideal, you're running x64 so as to have access to the full 4GB of memory. ACQUIRE AN AZURE SERVICES DEVELOPER KEY To develop against Azure and/or .Net Services and SQL Services, you need an invitation code. Oooh, very exclusive. Pretty people to the front of the line! You can start the process here . If you run into problems, che

Get Your Team Foundation Server Hate On!

[Google ranking skyrockets... ;-)] I'm a big fan of TFS/VSTS. However, there are a good pocket of folks who take issue with the way TFS handles or implements a certain feature. Well this is your chance to vent! I'm planning a presentation around the "Top 10 TFS/VSTS Hates and How to Alleviate Them"...or something along those lines. But I need your help. Post a comment below detailing your dislike. If it's legitimate, I'll highlight it in the presentation and [hopefully] provide an alternative, resolution, or work-around. Thanks in advance! Update 7/19/2008: Version Control and Microsoft

Rollback a Ooops in TFS with TFPT Rollback

Rhut roe, Raggie. You just checked in a merge operation affecting 100's of files in TFS against the wrong branch. Ooops. Well, you can simply roll it back, right? Select the folder in Source Control Explorer and...hey, where's the Rollback? Rollback isn't supported in TFS natively. However, it is supported within the Power Tools leveraging the command-line TFPT.exe utility. It's fairly straightforward to revert back to a previous version--with one caveot. First, download and install the Team Foundation Power Tools 2008 on your workstation. Before proceeding, let's create a workspace dedicated to the rollback. To "true up" the workspace, the rollback operation will peform a Get Latest for every file in your current workspace. This can consume hours (and many GB) with a broad workspace mapping. To work around this, I create a temporary workspace targeted at just the area of source I need to roll back. So let's drill down on our scenario... I'm worki