This article is a response to "Fight for internet freedom begins with net neutrality" by Nick Vogt, which ran in this publication Monday, March 2.
When it comes to net neutrality, as with so many other issues, the government's policy seems to be "if it ain't broke, we'll fix that."
As your article points out, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided last week to give themselves jurisdiction over the Internet. Proponents of this decision, such as yourself, claim that this takeover is necessary to protect us from evil Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that want to restrict our access to information they don't like. Others have also argued that ISPs will act like highway robbers, holding up sites like Netflix by throttling bandwidth until the sites pay the ransom demanded by the ISPs.
I absolutely agree that these are important issues that would have major negative impacts on free speech, innovation and society on the whole. Popular talk show host John Oliver is widely credited for bringing this issue into the mainstream with a hilarious skit showing that these things were already happening — Comcast was slowing down its customers' access to Netflix until Netflix paid them money. The skit even showed a chart of Netflix speeds, demonstrating clearly that a slowdown was occurring and that the speed suddenly returned to normal once Netflix paid up.
There are a few problems with Oliver's argument, though. First — as shown in Oliver's graph — Netflix speeds slowed not only on Comcast, but on more than half of all major ISPs during this time. Secondly, download speeds started increasing before the agreement was reached. Taken together, these factors mean either that Comcast was working in conspiracy with their greatest rivals to all throttle Netflix at the same time and suddenly changed their minds for no reason (before they got paid), or that some outside factor was actually responsible for the slowdown.
It is far more likely that these slowdowns were caused by the cold weather. They began in September as more people were staying inside and watching Netflix to avoid the cold. They got worse through October and November — more cold meant more viewers trying to use the same amount of bandwidth. They hit rock bottom in December through February. The colder months meant even more viewers and less bandwidth as winter storms knocked out telecommunications structure in some areas. They started getting better when the weather started warming up in March. As more people went outside instead of being glued to their Netflix screens, those that remained were allowed to squeeze through the Netflix bandwidth doorway more quickly.
Outside of this one example, which as detailed above is more indicative of the effect of total Internet use on download speeds than evidence of throttling, net neutrality advocates cannot find any examples of ISPs abusing their ability to regulate access to particular sites. Even if the Comcast-Netflix incident were what Oliver claims it to be, would a single case in 30 years of unregulated Internet really justify submitting one of the last bastions of unrestricted freedom to government control?
ISPs don't tamper with their customers' Internet access because they aren't evil, just greedy. Like any business, their goal is to make money. Comcast cannot block or slow consumers' access because consumers won't tolerate that treatment; customers would simply switch to some other ISP that would allow them unregulated access. Because customers can vote with their wallets in a free market, and because ISPs want that money, the Internet will naturally stay unrestricted and neutral as long as users demand it.
The net neutrality movement is taking the Internet out of the realm of the free market, where producers are chained to consumers, and taking it instead to the realm of government regulations, bureaucracy and red tape. Net neutrality takes the leash out of our hands and gives it to the people who brought you Janet Jackson's Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction.
Diversity and creativity cannot survive the bans and fines of the heavy handed FCC. Under so stifling a ruler, the Internet would end up as bland and barren as basic cable.