“Net Neutrality” is a popular buzzword nowadays in the political world, yet very few people know exactly what it is or what it means in relation to the internet. But it’s very, very important.
The term “net neutrality” refers to the idea that everyone should have equal and ultimately unrestricted access to the internet, period. It means, ultimately, that no matter where you are, what ISP you have, and how much you pay, you get access to the very same internet, with the same websites, tools, and equipment. Your speed is determined by technical factors only, and the amount of speed you get from your ISP is determined merely by the amount you pay them and the contract between you two. Long story short? You pay for the internet, and what you do with it is your business.
Seems fair, right? Except internet companies don’t like it, for obvious reasons. You see, back 5 to 10 years ago, ISPs (Internet Service Providers, like Time Warner, Comcast, Earthlink, etc) had a pretty good money making machine going — they had a lot of high powered equipment that could easily serve their consumer base. Few people really used their download speed constantly, so they could oversell servers and make a tidy profit by banking on the fact that few people used the internet heavily. The problem is, as you can imagine, people began to use the internet for more and more — gaming, YouTube and other streaming video services, and the like — and such shoddy business practices became unstable.
As a result, ISPs are now gunning for largely any sort of way they can milk money out of the internet-using consumer base. Be it “turbo” additions (for extra down/up speed), “business services”, or other sorts of packages, the idea is to figure out a way to monetize on the internet in a new way. The problem is, the internet doesn’t lend itself to that easily — that is, unless you find a way to make people pay for what they use already. This idea — “tiering”, or artificial control of the internet — would make you pay for using different parts of the internet in order to make more money on what you do. Basically, it’s taking what you have for free now and charging for it.
So, for example, a company might establish a “basic package” that could only access websites like Google or Yahoo, and then a “premium package” that included the entire web, and so on. Or, even worse, they could charge you for using certain services — like online video games — by the minute or the gigabyte. Roughly, it would be similar as if the power company didn’t just provide you power, but if they also came into your house, made an inventory of your electricity-using items, and then charged you $10 extra for having a breadmaker. They might even slow down (or outright block) your connection to websites that don’t pay them a fee. It could even go so far as for companies with specific political ideologies to prevent people from accessing radical websites — for example, they could block this very article because it speaks out for net neutrality. It’s unfair, nonsensical, and really, really corrupt. It would be the same thing as if the government began charging you extra money for using certain state roads rather than others (like a $20 “highway fee” per month) for no other reason than just to make money off of you.
The further worry is that it could very well be a slippery slope into federal control of the internet (ironic, given a good part of the internet isn’t American anyway). Like the horrible, failed, expensive, and terrible Australian attempt to “censor” the internet, this could mean that the government has ultimate control over what you see, read, and even say — and you’d have no idea how it was being manipulated. Once companies have the right to manipulate the data between you and another party on the internet, the government could very well do the same. You could literally be banned from reading websites that complain about the government — Big Brother would be watching.
Of course, these companies like to say this would “never” happen — but that’s absolute trash. The economy does not operate on the “trust system” — we don’t let companies have huge amounts of freedom on the tenuous promise they won’t exploit it. Furthermore, it’s pretty damn questionable, legality-wise — implicitly, by “tiering” the internet, the companies would be profiting off others’ work, particularly in that they would be making money on people wanting to access websites unaffiliated with the company. It would be the outright, unquestionable, unstoppable end of the internet as we know it.
Net neutrality fixes this. If Congress passes a net neutrality bill, it would make it illegal for companies to “tier” the internet at all, or do anything like what I mentioned above. They’ve already begun to try to “prioritize” (“tiering” lite) the internet, and it’s not going to get any better any time soon. It will essentially set a very clear standard for internet use that makes it similar to other utilities, like water or power, allowing companies to control your usage and charge you for it, but not how you use it. It sure as hell may not be super-profitable on the side of the ISP, but it’s ultimately fair, and it makes everyone play by the rules.
Therefore, when you hear idiots like Michelle Bachmann call Net Neutrality an “Obama administration plot” to “censor the internet”, ignore her, she has no idea what she’s talking about whatsoever. Net neutrality is freedom — it is inherently anti-censorship, anti-monitoring, and pro-freedom. It allows everyone equal ability to say anything they want without any sort of corporate or political censorship. No matter the party, you should support it — your right to even read this website depends on it. Republican or Democrat, demand that your Congressman/Senator pushes for it — it’s fundamentally rooted in your right to say anything at all.
