Why Net Neutrality is Anti-Consumer
Why should websites get special government treatment better than everyone else?
- Everyone else, consumers, businesses, broadband providers, and the government have to pay the competitive price for the bandwidth they use and for additional features like mobility. All Internet backbone companies “peer" at different commercially-negotiated rates based on bandwidth and quality.
- Website interests, ecommerce-sellers and bloggers, want special government treatment -- just for them -- one government-set broadband price, with special terms and conditions that consumers don’t get.
- Net neutrality is classic special-interest legislation – elaborately dressed–up in pro-consumer, pro-free speech garb -- to make it sound less self-serving.
Why is net neutrality not in consumers’ interests?
- Net neutrality promotes the interests of sellers by lowering their costs of distribution. Consumers are buyers with different interests, to save money, and not be inundated with spam and endless junk e-mail.
- At its core net neutrality is a clever lobbying ploy by website interests to shift normal business distribution costs to the consumer. Net neutrality is effectively pro-junk-e-mail legislation, because under net neutrality consumers pay for most all the cost of the junk-email they receive not the spammer.
Why should consumers have to foot the entire broadband bill when they don’t have to?
- Consumers don’t have to pay for the cost of search or pay for broadcast TV or radio – advertisers do.
- Advertising-supported models are a proven way to reduce the cost burden on consumers.
- Net neutrality would ban alternative business models for broadband, like advertising, that could reduce the consumers’ costs and provide consumers with more diversity of broadband service choices.
If net neutrality is anti-consumer, why are consumer groups backing it?
- Consumer groups apparently have made the tactical political judgment that “the enemy of their enemy is their friend." However, they may be mistaken that being lobbying allies in their longtime battle against telecom and cable de-regulation does not necessarily make net-neutrality a pro-consumer policy.
Why is net neutrality a losing trade-off for consumers?
- Net neutrality may offer the potential benefit of protecting some websites, not consumers, against potential anti-competitive harms, which haven’t happened, but might happen in the future.
- However, this would come at the real cost of: a slower and less responsive Internet; higher broadband prices and taxes for consumers; less diversity in the broadband market; slower broadband deployment to all Americans; and less privacy for all because net neutrality would require more government monitoring and surveillance of Internet traffic to enforce unequal commercial treatment.
Why is net neutrality not the Internet’s “First Amendment"?
- Net neutrality advocates have mischaracterized the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech by implying it is analogous to the need for net neutrality regulation of private companies. The founding fathers feared and restricted the government’s ability to limit the people’s freedom of speech.
- What is a bigger threat to Americans’ freedom of speech? The increasing diversity of private sector competition? Or encouraging government to limit commercial freedoms and conduct monitoring and surveillance of Internet traffic to ensure that all Internet bits are treated commercially equal?
An Analogy
I have a simple analogy to explain this concept to everyone.
The telcom providers are like a private road that connects people to a big city. In the city, millions of businesses, news-sources, organizations, etc. depend on people having access to them in the city.
NOW, the private road owners want to charge all the businesses in the city in order to open the roads to the consumers, who already pay the road owners for use of the road.
Don't believe me? Look at this and see that this site is supported only by all the major Telecom providers, acting only out of their own greedy interests. They want to abuse their position between the consumers and the internet at the cost of everyone else.
Devil's Advocate
Let's pretend that this article poses a good point, which it doesn't. Not only is Net Neutrality the ESSENCE of free speech, allowing even the smallest blogger to voice his/her opinion without needing to pay off the telecom companies to carry his/her message, but NET NEUTRALITY IS GOOD FOR AMERICA!
If the US telco companies were allowed to charge web sites to display them (this is what you want), this would cripple the ability of innovative and original web sites from forming without investors, capital, etc. SO, what would happen? I'll tell you. Our "pure capitalist" internet access would be inferior to internet access abroad. Foreign companies will develop their innovative and original web sites for foreign consumers quickly and easily, while only investor-backed American firms could even possibly compete. What's the result? The next generation of Googles, Yahoos, Ebays, Amazons, etc. would start abroad, and when they are adopted by American consumers, where will the profits go, certainly not to the US economy.
What about. . .?
I've only recently started reading your stuff, and in general I like it and agree with you. I am a huge fan of free markets and totally agree that government intervention is, nearly always, a bad thing.
I think that this post is a prime example of what I see as my only problem with your PoV's on this site. You're not just a free market advocate, you're a puritannical capitalist. I have never seen mentioned in any post that you make that the government's oversight role - a role that's importance is undisputed by modern economists - is in fact important and should be considered.
For example, in this post you completely ignore the oligopolistic anti-consumer practices that would be possible in a world without any sort of net-neutrality. The strangle-hold of a few major companies within a given marketplace is not something that can be fixed by the open market and is certainly not something that is ever 'pro-consumer'. I'm not an advocate of net neutrality, but I'm definitely against anything that leaves the telcos to just use their segments of the backbone to stifle competition for their traditional businesses (telephone and TV).
I'm very interested to hear what you think about this aspect of the issue. Any opinion on net neutrality that does not deal with unfair and anti-competitive market practices by oligopolies risks being labeled as at best a failure, and at worst a farce of a public image campaign by the telcos.
I disagree.
As a consumer, I want the freedom to go where I want on the internet, without having to pay to get into the "fast lane". If a network is capable of delivering a certain quality of service, then I expect that level of service, by default, as part of what I pay for internet access.
I want the freedom to use whichever web service suits me best. If some kid in their garage creates a better photosharing service than Flickr, I want to use it. If some blogger in pyjamas writes better than a New York Times columnist, I want to read them. If an open-source VoIP client works better and more securely than a proprietary one, I want to use it.
I want to do all of these things without having to pay an internet tax to the private toll collectors who are opposing net neutrality.
How is net neutrality anti-consumer? If a consumer has paid for internet access but, thanks to a lack of net neutrality, is restricted in what online services they can use, isn't THAT anti-consumer?
Nobody will thank you for breaking the internet.
I Agree.
The problem I have with "net neutrality" regulation is similar to the problem I have with the packages offered by Cable Companies in lieu of a la carte cable. Instead of allowing me to pay for only the channels I want, they bundle channels together and force everyone to share the costs so that those who want more expensive stations don't have to foot the whole bill for them. Net neutrality regulation will create a similar situation. SOMEONE will have to pay for the additional bandwidth needed by VoIP, streaming video, online gaming etc. If the websites that inundate the web with these services aren't sharing the costs, then the full burden will fall to the consumer.
Cable TV is not Neutral
Cable and satellite TV is not a neutral environment. They own the networks and have cut programming deals with each station in order for them to appear in your home. That's *exactly* what will happen if there isn't neutrality on the internet -- someone who refuses to pay somehow isn't available when you type in their address in your web browser.
Microsoft and Google pay for bandwidth; a lot of money for it in fact. If it's not enough bandwidth to send video, then they'll have to pony up the money for more bandwidth. If there isn't enough bandwidth on the networks, then the telcos (backbone providers) need to quit overselling their networks. What Google and Microsoft do with the bandwidth they purchase is entirely up to them, just like it's entirely up to me what I do with my $30 connection from Verizon. If it's not enough bandwidth to watch TV, then I'm, sure Verizon will sell me more.
If the telcos want a guaranteed profit, then they need to accept they're a monopoly and live with it.
I.E. government taxation of
I.E. government taxation of the internet......great post!