”The end of the internet as we know it!” Really??? The outcry over the repeal of the set of regulations known as “net neutrality” has literally made me laugh out loud. The lemmings fell in line behind those who beat the drum, but I’ve been surprised at others who jumped on the bandwagon. I mean, who wants the internet to end, right? The argument against this action is almost entirely one liners, memes, name calling and late night comedy sketches by the likes of Jimmy Kimmel. None of it reaches intelligent thought. So I feel like being the grown up in the room to let the kids know it is going to be okay. Don’t panic.
If you don’t care about laws and nerdy stuff, move on to the next post. I care about this subject because my income is made from building on the internet, so of course I want it to thrive. I am also in business for myself, so I want businesses to be governed fairly. Here are some ways to look at this subject from a real perspective.
First of all I believe in the idea of net neutrality. Who doesn’t like Shangri la. But what does Utopia cost? My generation has failed the new generation in teaching that nothing is free. Somehow they have decided that healthcare must be free, education must be free, the internet should be free, and many think income should be free. Nothing is free; freedom isn’t even free.
The humorous part is the extreme statements over the repeal of a law that has been on the books for 2 years. I’ve had the internet since 1997. That’s 20 years (so you won’t have to do math in your head). I had access to all the information on the web for 18 years before Obama saved us all. And, miracle, I still have internet two days after the repeal. I am confident that will not change.
The drum beaters levy accusations about “big business” wanting to block service as they please and manage who gets what access. Who are the drum beaters? Google, Facebook, Netflix and the like. Are these not, themselves, multi-billion dollar businesses? Let’s look at their practices. Google, at its core, is a search engine, a gateway to the world wide web. So is everything on Google free and neutral? When you do a search, the first 3 or 4 positions at the top have paid to be there. The one with the most money wins the top spot. If the searcher can be offered a “place”, then the next 3 spots belong to those who have subscribed to Googles “places” service. After that are the organic results governed by a strict set of rules called an algorithm. Those that follow Googles rules the best get good placement. Those that don’t get penalized and buried in thousands of results. Is that fair access to the little guy?
I have over 1000 friends on Facebook, but they decide what posts come to the top of my feed. it isn’t based on the last person to post. Recently, Facebook was called out on, and admitted to, blocking conservative news posts and shares. Does all this seem fair and equal?
Terri and I were watching Magnum PI on Netflix when all of a sudden they discontinued the offering because they couldn’t strike a deal they liked with the owner of the series. I think it isn’t fair. I want to watch Magnum drive around in his red Ferrari so Netflix should make it available at any cost because I deserve it.
Here is an illustration to simplify what this law was about. Pretend you have a business of supplying water. You invested in a water tower, pumps, pipes and secured a water source. You laid pipe to make water available to potential customers. You charge everyone a flat fee to use your water because you have cost providing the service. Then one of the customers puts in a water park with pools and slides. The demand is great on your system, pumps have to work harder to keep up, the other customers have interruptions in service because one user is sucking so much more water. No one complains too loudly because they all like going to the water park. But to keep up with demand and be a good supplier of water you add equipment and lay more pipe to the water park. You restructure your pricing and start charging the water park more for the water they use, because they use more. At times you have to throttle their usage back a little so others can have water. The water park sues you for charging them more. The government steps in and declares that the pipes are now public and you cannot charge extra or regulate their water usage in any way (which you still have to supply).
After a couple of years the affects of such over reaching regulations become more clear and they reverse those regulations. The water park launches a smear campaign and gets all the people who go to the water park to believe there will be no more water park because the government hates water and they are stupid heads and stuff. The people believe this because they know you are an evil business person who only cares about money, and they love water parks.
Another hilarious part is, the ones who are outraged over the reversal of net neut are Trump haters. So why do they want the administration they hate to govern the internet and decide what is fair?
The fact is, the FCC will still be policing the bad actors, stepping in when unfairness is discovered. The law was punishing the whole industry over the actions of a few companies in a few instances. So you can jump off the band wagon and be assured, you will still have internet and access everything out there freely (well, whatever Google and Facebook says you can). And I still won’t be able to watch Magnum PI.
