You are here

NN is "Reverse Robin Hood"

In the real world, NN would have a "reverse Robin Hood" effect where NN would "rob" from light bandwidth users and "give it" to heavy users of bandwidth. The mantra of NN is "non-discrimination" which is a politically-manipulative way of saying broadband pricing must be uniform or averaged

Practically, it means that people that could be paying a lower price for demanding less bandwidth or sevices are forced to pay a higher price to subsidize those who demand and use more bandwidth and services. Simply, NN takes from the bandwidth "poor" and gives it to the bandwdth "rich" -- a classic "reverse Robin Hood" scenario. 

This has been my rationale in calling NN: "corporate welfare for dotcom billionaires." Just imagine the relative advantage and subsidy that the huge bandwidth users like Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, eBay and Amazon, get from the price averaging of "supposed non-discrimination" regulation! Their rhetoric of looking out for the little guy doesn't square with the facts that their NN price-averaging scheme has the real world effect of shifting a large part of the costs of their extraordinarily-high bandwidth usage onto the average low bandwidth user.  

Moreover, NN's mandated average-pricing effectively bans price/choice diversity -- in the name of neutrality or fairness. NN effectively bans innovative, very-low price bandwidth offerings out of the perverse logic that it wouldn't be fair to high-bandwidth users. 

It appears that many neutrality-ites are so knee-jerk anti-business, that they have not thought through the actual perverse re-distribution of income implications of their NN price-averaging crusade. Please tell me where my logic and analysis is wrong -- I don't think it is.    

It is ironic that all of the 2008 Democratic Presidential hopefuls have enthusiastically embraced the NN price averaging policy that protects the windfall bandwidth-cost-savings of the online giants, at the expense of the little guy and the middle class. Could it be that Silicon Valley fundraising expedience is trumping longstanding Democratic political principles? Could it be that they are over-pandering to the blogging faction of the party because they are the most vocal and in vogue? Or is it what I think it is -- that they simply  haven't yet figured out the clear "reverse Robin Hood" effect of NN?    

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths