Despite intentions, ‘net neutrality’ gives online control to politicians

By David McElroy · July 12, 2017

Everybody knows “net neutrality” is a great idea. Right?

Ask any self-respecting member of the digerati and you’ll get the same response. We need net neutrality to “save our Internet.” That’s what all their slogans say, so it must be true.

But do you know what the real issues are? Do the people leading the pro-net neutrality crusades even understand what they’re advocating? Or are they just going along with what seems like a good idea since it’s aimed at big companies they don’t like?

There are few issues today which are as dishonestly framed as “net neutrality.” Although I like many of the outcomes which its advocates favor, the idea is a massive intrusion on private property — and it sets up government to control the Internet.

Briefly, the idea of net neutrality is that any Internet provider must treat every packet of data coming through the network equally. The provider isn’t allowed to charge more or less for one type of data — video or traffic coming from one particular site, for instance. An Internet service provider isn’t allowed to have plans that give a user all the data he wants from one company but have metered access (or no access) for data coming from a different company.

That sounds reasonable, right? On the surface, yes. This has been the way the Internet operated from the beginning, but it was a voluntary arrangement that developed through private agreements. There was no rule that insisted this was the way it had to be. In other words, the market dictated that this was best for the companies involved and for their customers — at least for the most part.

Private companies built their Internet infrastructure and voluntarily linked those networks through peering agreements. Although the original network was started with U.S. government funding, these private companies were allowed to openly build on it without restrictions, so they went with this model instead of the old closed model of the original giants such as CompuServe and AOL. The consumer market demanded interconnected access to various networks, so companies did that instead of continuing to have their individual proprietary networks which were closed off to anyone not on those networks.

Today, companies are experimenting with changes — and a lot of people don’t like that. Frankly, I prefer the neutral model and I think we’re all better off with it, but this is an issue for market forces to decide, not political power.

Political interests want to force the networks to operate according to their own principles, ignoring what is in the best interests of the companies which invest the money. This is a power grab of private networks and it’s wrong, even if I like the end result which its advocates say they want.

The scariest part of it, though, is that once government regulates this much, it’s easy for the regulation to creep further — to outlaw “hate speech” and then “offensive speech” and then whatever is unpopular with whichever majority controls political power.

The people promoting “net neutrality” claim they favor freedom, but what they really favor is forcing companies to operate their networks as they desire — and setting up politicians to have even more control over those networks. The net neutrality advocates are desperately trying to give power to politicians that most politicians wouldn’t dream of asking for.

Only in a world of Orwellian doublespeak can it be “pro-freedom” to give more control to politicians over private actions.

Giving more control to politicians is a terrible idea, but hardly anybody will bother to listen anymore, because they have been so convinced it’s a good idea — without even understanding what’s really at stake.

I don’t care for some of the big companies that are the targets of net neutrality. I’m not even crazy about my own Internet service provider. But the choice here isn’t “freedom vs. big companies.” The choice is “big companies vs. politicians.”

I want a truly free Internet. I want competitors to have the freedom to compete and innovate with new business models, because consumers voting with their spending choices should choose, not politicians.

There are no perfect solutions, but the worst possible solution is giving control to politicians.

What is now called “net neutrality” is really just a method of giving politicians more and more control of the Internet. If that doesn’t scare you, you’re missing the long-term implications of this unwise crusade by well-meaning but short-sighted people.

Share on Social Networks

I’m seeing a lot of simplistic and dishonest explanations right now for the current rioting in France. Those on the populist far right claim it’s all about Muslim immigrants to France disrupting the culture. Their message is that this sort of thing is going to happen in the U.S. unless “we defend the border.” On the far left, socialists and their fellow travelers claim the riots are all about wealthy people in France not paying enough taxes, resulting in cuts to government services. The truth is far more complicated, but it’s rooted in the decline of population growth in Europe. There simply aren’t enough young workers paying into the tax system anymore, so cuts in social services were inevitable. There is genuine cultural tension as more and more people immigrate from other countries, but government cuts to education and other services are even more important to what’s happening. The situation is complicated, so don’t let dishonest people with U.S. political agendas tell you that it happens to support whatever they were already promoting for partisan reasons.

Here’s another reason to appreciate the cats in your life: New research involving 93 countries found that places with more cats per person also tended to have happier people. The researchers say the finding fits with previous evidence that living with pets can reduce loneliness and stress while providing companionship, emotional attachment and social support. The study doesn’t prove that cats cause greater happiness, but it certainly adds to the evidence that sharing your home — and your life — with a cat might be good for you.

The company that owns Facebook and Instagram is heavily promoting its new AI-based software assistant called Muse, but people who are using it as it was designed are incredibly foolish. An early adopter of the software discovered that a few days ago when he advertised an item for sale on Facebook Marketplace — and he inadvertently gave Muse full authority to act on his behalf. The software agreed to a lowball offer made by another Facebook user and then gave that man the home address of the man for whom he was an agent. The software told the buyer that the seller was home and waiting for him. When the buyer showed up and waited angrily, the would-be buyer left an angry review for the man. And this angry man had the seller’s home address. It was only well after that that the software reported what it had done and admitted it had made a mistake. I won’t be putting that much power into the hands of any software. I think anyone who agrees to such terms is a fool. And the software’s user agreement says you’re responsible for purchases the software makes in your name. Nope.

Meet my new girlfriend. Her name is Meg. And she’s my little sweetheart. A couple of months ago, a neighbor across the street told me about a new stray in the neighborhood that she and I were both soon feeding. The cat had been very skittish about contact and she had a lot of scabs and parasites in her fur, but a trip to the vet last week revealed that she was otherwise in good health. The vet estimates her to be 1 to 2 years old. I named her for Meg Murry, the 13-year-old protagonist of Madeleine L’Engle’s wonderful book, “A Wrinkle in Time.” (Please read the book. Don’t watch the horrible movie.) Since we lost Lucy almost a year ago, it seems appropriate that we finally have a new little girl to join the household. She’s already captured my heart, but Alex, Oliver and Sam aren’t there quite yet.

There’s nothing socially acceptable that’s as dangerous as drinking alcohol. Most people grow up being told to “drink responsibly” — and all of us see people abusing this drug in one way or another — but the truth is that drinking alcohol is always a terrible risk. The alcohol in these drinks is toxic and the human liver has to work hard to filter the toxins out. What most people don’t realize is that alcohol is classified as a known carcinogen by the World Health Organization — because of the well-established connection between imbibing and various cancers. Many people have taken refuge behind the idea that light or moderate drinking might be safe, but a new study shows that drinking even one drink a day increases the risks of 10 types of cancer. When I was a teen-ager, I looked around and saw the negative effects that this behavior had on a lot of people and decided not to start drinking, so I’ve never even tried this poison. The evidence keeps piling up that I was lucky to have come to that conclusion early.

Related Posts