At first glance, net neutrality seems like a great idea. It proclaims to keep the Internet free, equal and void of discrimination. Freedom, equality and anti-discrimination certainly are important American principles, but they are meant to be applied to citizens’ relationship with government, not citizens’ relationship with private businesses. Internet access is not a right, and all of the intricacies and stipulations of the service should be left up to the Internet company and its customers.
At a technical level, net neutrality makes it so all “packets of data” have to be treated equally. Treating all data equally ignores the reality that different Internet activities have different levels of priority. Streaming video requires a constant, active connection, whereas browsing text-based websites or receiving email requires much less bandwidth and only an intermittent connection. Internet bandwidth is a finite resource, and it needs to be allocated according to the demands of consumers. We see the principle of priority-based allocation in numerous other industries. Those wanting to reduce wait time at amusement parks pay extra for fast passes. People pay different rates for shipping depending on how fast they want to receive an item. The same concept should apply to the Internet. If a certain website wants their data prioritized, they should pay for it.
One example of the net neutrality issue involved Netflix and Comcast. Comcast began to slow Netflix’s transmission of data because of the vast amount of bandwidth it required. Netflix eventually had to pay Comcast to get its data prioritized to the point that video-streaming customers were satisfied. Netflix wanted net neutrality so it didn’t have to pay the increased costs associated with prioritizing its data. Its business relies on a constant stream of data, so it can’t afford to “wait in line” like the rest of us when bandwidth usage is high. Now that Netflix and other net neutrality proponents have gotten their way, the costs associated with the demands they place on the network are distributed across all customers instead of just themselves. If we want a system where Internet users pay according to the data they use, we can’t have net neutrality.
While net neutrality is inherently an issue relating to allocating the finite resource of bandwidth, some portray it as a free speech issue. Internet companies would supposedly censor traffic or block certain websites for profit. That doesn’t appear to be happening. The only issues of throttling are related to excessive demands on the network. Historically, if there’s any entity to fear censorship from, it’s the government.
While the United States government hasn’t censored the Internet as much as other governments, governments are the only organizations that have a reason to block content. Internet companies could care less about the content they allow customers to access, provided that those customers are paying for it. That explains why many Internet service providers don’t block illegal downloads and are often reluctant to do so when governments demand they do.
The way to a better Internet isn’t through more regulation— it’s through competition. Now that the Internet is seemingly a public utility in which all data must be treated equally, lower-end users will subsidize the demands of those who require more data. If an Internet service provider can’t charge more to users and the high-bandwidth websites or throttle their data transmission, then everyone, including light Internet users, will be paying more. While net neutrality theoretically requires all data to travel at the same speed, it seems as if supporters of net neutrality think that regulation will somehow increase the speed of all traffic regardless of how limited bandwidth is. Traffic jams happen, and it’s not a surprise that those wanting a fast lane would be expected to pay for it.
To create a more competitive Internet, it is up to local governments to free up public infrastructure for new companies. Google Fiber, which provides gigabit Internet (100x faster than most existing connections), is attempting to expand to new cities at great prices. All it needs is municipalities to allow it to move in. Additionally, even just the threat of Google Fiber moving into a city can get existing Internet providers to increase their Internet speeds. Overall, when local governments embrace competition, they see better results.
A faster and better Internet will emerge as the result of new technologies and market competition. It can’t emerge as a result of net neutrality regulation, which only further entrenches monopolies and places the costs of prioritized data upon all customers instead of just those who demand it. Our focus should not be on regulating the Internet; rather, we should focus on easing the requirements for competition by getting lobbyists out of the regulatory field and removing restrictions that prevent innovative companies like Google Fiber from moving in.
Tim is a freshman majoring in finance and economics. What are your thoughts on net neutrality? Do you agree with Tim’s opinion? Please send all comments, questions and concerns to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
