The specter of ISPs offering glacial access to certain websites is a smokescreen, designed to obscure the net-neutrality movement's goal: preventing anyone from having superior, unequal access to customers.
America's leading Internet service providers (ISPs) have spent many years and billions of dollars upgrading their transcontinental networks, which constitute the backbone of the Internet. Now they are eager to profit by offering new, compelling services. One plan is to give certain websites high priority on their data, so as to guarantee "quality of service" — the speed, frequency, and reliability with which data is delivered. This would enable content providers to offer high-quality live TV and videoconferencing or advanced remote medical monitoring, without the delays and unreliability that plague the Internet today. Unfortunately, data prioritization is fiercely opposed by advocates of "Net Neutrality," who claim paradoxically that freedom and innovation demand that companies not be free to make this innovation.
Net neutrality is the idea that ISPs should not be able to favor some types of data over others; their networks must be "neutral" among all the data they carry. Net-neutrality supporters claim that if ISPs are free to give preferential treatment to certain websites' data, they might drastically slow down un-favored or less-wealthy websites, diminishing their ability to offer content and make innovations. A prominent net-neutrality coalition cautions: "If you are an aspiring entrepreneur, you may be impeded from providing the 'next big thing' on the Internet."
But such scenarios are nonsensical. For any of the nation's competing ISPs to offer customers slow, patchy, let alone nonexistent access to the websites they seek to visit, would be commercial suicide. As for innovation, websites are free to continue using standard, non-prioritized Internet service. The fact that this would be slower than premium service does not mean that it would be slow, just as UPS's decision to offer overnight delivery did not lead them to suddenly degrade their Ground shipping. Premium Internet services would enable, not stifle, innovation, by giving websites creative options they did not have before.
The specter of ISPs offering glacial access to certain websites is a smokescreen, designed to obscure the net-neutrality movement's goal: preventing anyone from having superior, unequal access to customers. In the minds of net-neutrality advocates, the Internet is a collectively owned entity, to which all websites have an equal claim and are entitled "equal access." As the title of a leading net-neutrality group proclaims: "It's our Net."
But it isn't.
The Internet is not a collectivist commune; it is a free, voluntary, and private association of individuals and corporations harmoniously pursuing their individual goals. (While it began as a government-funded project, the Internet's ultra-advanced state today is the achievement of private network builders, hardware companies, content providers, and customers.) Because the Internet is based on voluntary association, no one can properly compel others for their ad space, bandwidth, publicity — or data prioritization. Those who create these values have the right to use and profit from them as they see fit. Google has no more right to demand that Verizon be "neutral" with its network than Verizon has a right to demand that Google be "neutral" with its coveted advertising space.
The only thing equal about the participants on the Internet is that all have equal freedom to deal with others voluntarily. This means they are equally free to compete for the bandwidth, dollars, and talents of others — but not entitled to an unearned, equal portion of them.
It is the freedom of participants on the Internet to offer and profit from whatever products, services, or content they choose that has made it such a phenomenal source of content and innovation. Net neutrality would deny ISPs that freedom. It would deny their right to engage in creative, innovative, and profitable activity with those networks — in the name of those who demand their bandwidth, but are unable or unwilling to earn it in a free market.
The widespread support for net neutrality among successful Internet companies — including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, eBay, and Amazon — is short-sighted and contemptible. These companies, which have benefited greatly from the unimpeded freedom of the Internet, are now trying to deny the same freedom to innovative ISPs and ambitious competitors under the egalitarian banner of "equal access." This is an invitation for any clever moocher to demand "equal access" to their hard-earned resources; indeed, Google is already being sued because its proprietary search engine allegedly gives "unfair" rankings to certain companies.
The Internet is one of the great bastions of freedom and innovation in our civilization. Let us keep it that way by rejecting "net neutrality."
media@aynrand.org
http://www.aynrand.org
Read more articles by Alex Epstein
This is my views on the subject. Net neutrality can basically be boiled down to this, access speed. Lets look at some examples that we can use to get a better picture for people not "In the know" on technology. The US highways have regulated speeds. Just because someone owns a 200MPH car does not mean that they can travel at that speed. It's the same thing. Net neutrality is basically asking that everyone be regulated at the same "speed limit", not favoring anyone.
Companies currently can obtain faster speeds for their customers through the use of server-side technologies. IE OC3 data lines and multiple redundant servers through multiple pipes.
As far as consumer speeds, we actually lag behind in that technology. Just look across the Pacific and you'll notice that Japanese consumers enjoy RELIABLE 40MBPS cable/dsl connections that are cheaper per mbps than anything that is available today in the US.
Net neutrality should be passed. We need to increase reliability of consumer connections and speeds before we allow the pipelines to be switched to a fee based prioritization, otherwise there will be no appeal to invest and impliment newer CURRENT technologies.
Comment by Bryan Schaefer | July 14, 2006
One last thing that I forgot to address. The reference to the UPS system doesn't really take into affect the current bottleneck of internet speeds. The consumer lines are the specific bottlenecks.
So, lets apply net neutrality to the UPS. The UPS is a reliable and efficient service, albiet not the most profitable. The law is put into effect, and now the UPS is still able to go 55MPH on the highways, however, FEDEX is able to go 100MPH because they paid a premium (the speed aspect). Also, UPS is now limited to only having 500 trucks on the road instead of the 1000 in their fleet. They are capable of going faster (owning OC3 lines) but cannot because of budget constraints (to pay the premium). Fedex can, so they have double the fleet that UPS does because they too had 1000 trucks (trucks are compairable to data packets that do the data delivery in network technologies). So, do you see what happens to UPS? If this was data, timeouts would occur (equal to them loosing a package), customers would get angry, they would loose money. All the while the roads to most of the houses are gravel (poor quality internet connections).
Comment by Bryan Schaefer | July 14, 2006
Here, Here! Innovation is the backbone of society. Let freedom ring! Oh, and forget about any good free sites out there and don't worry about being forced to slog away at what is left. Driving along at speeds a turtle would find contemptible is what poor people deserve. Heck, if those people who need free content weren't on the net we'd be able to go faster yet!
Comment by John | July 15, 2006
Only a conservative could suggest trashing a system that benefits everyone in favor of one that benefits a minority over the majority and call it 'freedom'.
I guess in the same way 42 million people in this country are 'free' of health care?
Perhaps a consortium of genuinely free countries should start building an alternative and neutral Internet now, and leave American conservatives to wreck the old Internet with as many tiers of access as their warped little minds can devise.
Yes, that's it, a separate Internet for conservatives, perfect. Meanwhile the rest of the world can get on with expanding on a good idea, without being weighted down by this country's ideological baggage.
Comment by Max Godwin | July 16, 2006
I disagree with Mr. Epstein, Net neutrality must exist in order to give EVERYBODY the same chance, what he and other propose is a type of "affirmative (PAID) action" on the web, you pay, you go faster, you do not pay, then sc..w you! very nice uh? with the existing infrastructure any ISP is able to offer more speed with less money that we are actually paying now, Japan and South Korea do have it, Sweden does have it too, why are we lagging behind? simple, corporate greed, and absolute lack of respect for the American consumer. Our legislators are only making this worse, common sense is in short supply in Washington.
Comment by Rudy | July 18, 2006