Ahhh, NetNeutrality. So blissful, so wonderful. The government needs to ensure that evil companies don’t tax consumers. Now, that sounds all nice. But, on a call with the Open Internet Coalition, they admitted in Q&A that it wasn’t just about consumers, but also application specialists. They also admitted that the status quo is absolutely wonderful, all of this is based on fears of what “may” come at a later time.
So, we want the government to start regulating 4/5ths of our economy (Their number, not mine) based off a fear. Once again, net neutrality really comes down to the left wanting their nuggets for free. In other words, companies that invest in the infrastructure to bring highspeed internet to my home for $29/month really dont have the right to make or turn a profit?
Over and over again, Markham Erickson, Open Internet Coalition; Paul Misener, Amazon.com; Derek Turner, Free Press; and Harold Feld, Public Knowledge talked about the Bell and Cable companies who were lobbying hard to prevent the consumer from getting products that they need.
Fundamentally at issue is who has a “right” to the internet. Roads are “free” because the government creates them, but even then there are toll roads. Why not have road neutrality and suspend all toll roads? Because investors (sometimes taxpayers, sometimes private companies) have invested in a product and need to get a return on their investment.
During the call, Derek Turner (also called Glenn Beck and AFP the fringe of society) talked about how there is no “real” competition among wireless companies. First, I can choose between five different carriers in my area. But, if I was in rural South Dakota, I may only have one or two choices. Why? Because I am out in the middle of nowhere and only one or two companies decided to invest in a tower for my service. But what if no one had invested? Do I still have a right to wireless service? No. Do I have a right to the internet? No. I like it, I am able to work remotely on it. But I don’t have an inalienable right to it. That is why I pay for it. So, if TimeWarner doesn’t want me going on some Torrent site for what I pay, I may have to pay a little extra. Or, find another ISP who doesn’t charge. I would still rather the decision be between me and my supplier than mother government. The same government that blocks FoxNews because it is an “entertainment” site and not a news site. Hmmm. Go figure.
In closing, the song and dance is the same. They say choice and competition because it sounds pretty and American. But, I like my current internet service and I like my current health plan so take your net neutrality and shove it. I don’t see the crisis here worth giving up more rights for the sake of “regulating” to make sure my rights stay the same.