Net Neutrality

The interwebz are changing folks, and many of us won't like it.

Let's look at the the concept of net neutrality. The basic premise is that web content shouldn't be filtered or prioritized.

Sounds good. I go after a wide variety of content on the web, and I don't want to have to pay extra just because I want to look at midget porn one day.

Is there a problem with it..... of course. This is the Daddy Warcrimes blog after all, and I can't just leave it that simple.

First problem: the consumer.

We have grown to expect flat rates on services, because we are too inconvenienced by paying different charges from month to month. Metered rates for communication are so old school; individual bandwidth usage can fluctuate dramatically from month to month so best just to pay a flat rate.

Enter the unlimited data plan. These are great, so long as your ISP can provide unlimited data. The reality is that bandwidth is finite, and at some point it's limit will be reached.

For many years, ISPs have had a bandwidth surplus. The could reasonably assure their customers a portion of that bandwidth based on usage trends. Yes, the total guaranteed bandwidth far exceeds their actual capabilities, much in the same way that there are more gym members than there are treadmills. Not everybody is going to be using it at the same time. It's a perfectly reasonable model.

Now fast forward. Online video streaming is becoming quite popular. People are downloading rather than renting movies. Bandwidth usage is exploding and nearing the capacity of the providers. At some point unless modified, speeds will slow. Try downloading a full feature film and see if your youtube videos don't load a little slower. Same concept on a larger scale.

It's an even bigger problem with cellular data providers as their networks are less suited to it than your home connection.

Here are some solutions:

1: Restricting content.
The popular idea among providers (especially cell companies) is to charge fees for access to high bandwidth servers (e.g. Youtube). It makes sense for guys who watch a lot of Youtube, and those that watch none, but for the occasional viewer is marginalized. You can look at it as charging for something they don't provide, or giving a rebate to those who don't hog bandwidth. Either way is a valid argument. Net neutrality would prohibit this kind of restriction or extra fee.


2: Metered internet.
You are charged by the number of 1s and 0s you transmit and receive. This would likely not go over well considering our migration to fixed rate services.

3: Bandwidth caps.
You are allotted so many 1s and 0s, and anything over you get charged extra. This is currently in use by many providers including my cell service.

4: Upgrade infrastructure.
This takes time and costs money. If you want continuing service without sacrificing your unlimited plan, you might just have to pay extra for a premium provider.

Any of these choices are reasonable, and not one of them requires FCC regulation. The best solution is for the ISPs to figure it out, and for the consumer to vote with their wallet.