Net Neutrality

On Thursday the FCC voted to repeal net neutrality rules. This is important and is likely to impact most of our lives directly or indirectly in the coming days, months, years, decades,...

Based on what I knew, or to put it more accurately thought I knew, I was against the repeal actions. It was my understanding that it would be the first step in making the last truly open non-controlled space into a manipulatable controlled environment.

This changed when 2 colleagues Al and Bob had the exact opposite view. They felt that it would make the Internet a free market, as it should be and would be beneficial to the companies and to the consumers.

I went back and started reading, listening and watching and spent hundreds of hours, okay 10's of hours on seeing which view is right. It seemed to be that in such a straight forward proposition there would  be a right and a wrong.

I've put together for you a series of videos that share both points of view. The first is a CBS clip on the announcement . And the 2nd is a WSJ video of 2015, which explains net neutrality when it first came up for discussion and a vote in 2015. All other videos are in order of their published date. I've given my conclusions and thoughts at the end of the series of videos. If you truly want to have an unbiased point of view, it makes sense to go through these series of videos and / or other matter on the subject, partisan and non-partisan. And then decide.

FCC votes to end net neutrality
The Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal net neutrality rules in place since 2015. Critics say the move will dismantle the "open internet" while proponents argue it will remove burdensome regulations on telecoms. Slate technology writer April Glaser joins CBSN to discuss what the future could be for net neutrality.
Published on Dec 14, 2017

Net Neutrality Explained
Published on Feb 26, 2015

Creators of the Internet Tell Congress Ajit Pai and FCC "Should Be Stopped"
Published on Dec 13, 2017

Ben Shapiro debunked by a network engineer on net neutrality.
Published on Dec 13, 2017

NET NEUTRALITY: Why Big Corporations Support It. | Louder With Crowder
Published on Dec 4, 2017

FCC chairman: Repealing net neutrality will benefit the market
Published on Nov 22, 2017

Former FCC Chairman Wheeler Reacts to Net Neutrality Plan
Published on Nov 21, 2017

Net Neutrality II: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
Published on May 7, 2017

Two Minutes on Why Net Neutrality is Terrible - Mark Cuban Explains
Published on Feb 25, 2015

My Take:
SAD. The repeal of net neutrality is a bad idea. It makes the Internet that has been for the most part open with access to all the Internet has to offer, to a curated version of the Internet. Where the curation is based on ability to pay. Not of the consumer, but of the content provider. Which means I may never even know what I'm missing.

A colleague who was for the repeal, gave his reason as net neutrality is government diktat and the government should stay out of the business of business. He went on to give the analogy of a retail store. In his opinion, Macy's should have the freedom to decide what they put on their shelves, and he and I should have the freedom of choosing whether to go to Macy's or to Sear's. Ironically even in the example, Sear's is no longer a real option. More to the point I agree with everything he said, and yet this has nothing to do with net neutrality. If at all you want to use the retail analogy, then Macy's is a store on the World Wide Web. And the Net connection is the road that leads to it. While the stores should have the freedom to have whatever they want on their shelves as in real life, the access to the roads should not be dependent on whether Macy's pays and access blocked to the Mom and Pop store next to Macy's since they were unable to pay the ISP. As in real life. True freedom is the ability to go to the store I want. Not choose among the few that I can reach.

If you look back at history, the maximum new wealth created by entrepreneurs has been created in the last 3 decades. Interestingly a large part of that has been their ability to access a large market, which until the Internet, was not available to the small guy. I'm not against the Big Guys. Actually I'm a fan, because to a large extent they are responsible for the wonderful quality of life that we have. I just want them to compete on a close to level playing field.

The good news is that the repeal is unlikely to create a major issue, since the consumers ability to switch providers, competition and the judicial system may get straying corporations back to doing the right thing. However what doesn't make sense is that if you want them to do the right thing, which the proponents say they will, why not have a set of rules that mandate it.

The argument that there should not be government intervention is flawed, since in any case rules, laws, society and everything around us is dictated by rules, regulations and norms, by the government. Its a Federal Law that dictates that I'm mandated to follow instructions of the aircraft crew, even though basic survival instinct should dictate that behavior. Which is why we get to choose the government. And that's how we control our destiny.

To summarize, its my personal opinion that all infrastructure that is a necessity should have government oversight. I believe that the Internet is a necessary infrastructure and hence should have rules similar to the others. Unfortunately that was just repealed. RIP Net Neutrality.

p.s.: To bolster my case, I just found someone else who seems to agree with it. The World Economic Forum.
"... The concept of government as provider comes next: government as provider of goods and services that individuals cannot provide individually for themselves. Government in this conception is the solution to collective action problems, the medium through which citizens create public goods that benefit everyone, but that are also subject to free-rider problems without some collective compulsion.

The basic economic infrastructure of human connectivity falls into this category: the means of physical travel, such as roads, bridges and ports of all kinds, and increasingly the means of virtual travel, such as broadband. All of this infrastructure can be, and typically initially is, provided by private entrepreneurs who see an opportunity to build a road, say, and charge users a toll, but the capital necessary is so great and the public benefit so obvious that ultimately the government takes over."
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/02/government-responsibility-to-citizens-anne-marie-slaughter/