Net Neutrality and the Gullible

What is likely?

There is the strawman of a role back to pre-2015 rules allowing the creation of a Monopoly

Pia’s plan does not promote or discourage monopolies. The FCC regulations; pre-2015, post-2015, or future Pia-change for ISP’s is monopoly neutral. We have a load of other laws apart from the FCC that deal with monopolies.  Changes at the FCC are not going to change those laws. So, this Monopoly thing is just propaganda serving an agenda.

Phillip Rosedale claims ‘many Americans have only one Internet provider.’ How many is his ‘many’? I live in a town of 100k with 22 ISP’s listed, 7 of which are major players. Where are these people with just one provider? My town gave a franchise to COX and still has 21 other ISP’s.

So, the ‘only one provider’ is an assumed ‘fact’ not in evidence, a fake fact often repeated to the point a majority believe it. A basic propaganda tactic. In reality, most people have no idea how many ISP’s are waiting to serve them.

So lonely . . . Neva River V

So lonely . . . Neva River V

The statement is something Phillip assumes is correct and it isn’t. People think he knows what he is talking about and he doesn’t. Dig for the facts. Trust no one with a dog in the race.

Ciaran thinks there is a lack of competition. There is a load of competition. Look at the map. Note the wireless service for broadband. The list of major Cable providers is here (478).  The Wikipedia lists these.

There is no lack of competition. People are being misled to serve an agenda. The media is misleading people. More and more fake news. Ciaran thinks people on both sides of the argument think there is a lack of providers and competitors. He’s more correct than I like. But, a huge number of people know better and the truth is out there. Do not let yourself be lied to.

So… what is most likely to happen with a free lightly regulated Internet, pre-2015 style? It will continue to improve, carry more, faster, and get cheaper. This is the long-term view.

As people cut the cord to Cable TV providers the load on the Internet will increase. For a time, Internet Service companies will want to charge more for improved service as they upgrade equipement. COX has already called me and offered to boost me from 50Mbps to 100Mbps for about US$10/month more.

Over time the free market will see more providers entering the field. Because of cord-cutters more and more small companies are entering the market place providing better customer service and performance. Competition drives down prices.


I have only addressed one of Ciaran’s points. I’ve written a lot to rebut it because most of the mainstream media is taking the position of the Washington Post that the return to a free market Internet is a bad thing. That is almost all you’ll hear from the media or find searching via Google. (Will Google and YouTube do to the Internet what the Left has done to our universities?)

There is a reason for the one-sidedness we are seeing on this issue. Politicians want control. The media, selling information, wants to restrict access to information. Politicians get power and silence their opposition. Media gets to control information, a form of power, and drive prices up.

In my face!

During the Obama administration the Democrats tried to control the opposition media using the FEC and FCC. (References) Control was the whole point of the FCC rules change 2015. It had nothing to do with helping the end user.

More evidence of this behavior is in the document  Net Neutrality: an E.U./U.S. Comparison, which is the only place I have seen the debate fairly defined, “It [Net Neutrality] concerns the financial and qualitative terms on which unaffiliated content and application providers (“CAPs”) may have their content delivered by the local access provider or Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”).” Still Net Neutrality is not defined just the debate about it.

The document seems to come from the European mindset that more government control is better and clearly speaks of the 2015 changes as the American government taking control. Meaning the government decides what content gets delivered. The facade is that if the government doesn’t protect you then you will have your Netflix taken away or have to pay more for it. What we know is that as the government regulates it the price will go up and the quality and innovation will decrease.

That is a blatant scare tactic and not plausible under any scrutiny. Remember. Netflix, the business, has to connect to the Internet. They have a service provider. They can be billed for their massive bandwidth consumption. So, why are you too being billed for connecting to Netflix?

Is it because you aren’t subscribing to Hulu?

There are many seemingly unfair business practices. All but a few, like monopolies, can be handled by the free market and existing laws.

Giving the politicians more control is never a smart move. Pia is trying to move the Internet back into the free market. For the establishment that is a bad thing. For citizens, und users, it is a good thing.

5 thoughts on “Net Neutrality and the Gullible

  1. If 21 pioneers of the internet are extremely concerned, shouldn’t we be?

    • That is an odd way to make a political decision.

      You seem to presuppose their reasons are altruistic or their interests match yours. However, whenever the government is restricting/regulating things, taking away our freedom, we should be concerned. ‘Concerned’ is getting the facts. Most people are not doing that. The media and politicians certainly aren’t telling you the truth.

      I find it amazing that when the FCC offers to give back freedom, people freak. Also, that so many people believe those will agendas that run counter to a private citizen’s interests.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *