"Net Neutrality" - More Cockamamy Garbage

And, like so much of the other crap we get from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, more of the "rich-fat-cat" junk.  "Don't let those fat cats get higher speeds than you get."

Obviously, Obama and his ilk know absolutely nothing about the history of the telecommunications industry in this country.  You, on the other hand, will be much better informed than they once you read this post.

First, it was precisely "NON-net-neutrality" with respect to the telephone that put a phone in just about every home in this country, not only rolling the phone out at a speed that was truly breathtaking (even today), but at a cost that was extremely affordable.  In short, the cost of our home telephones was being subsidized by the commercial users.  If the phone companies that sprang up had been required to charge everyone the same for a phone, and to provide every user - commercial and home user alike - with the same level of service, you would have only found phones in the homes of the wealthy.

Second, it was the commercial users who paid for ALL - meaning EVERY ONE - of the advancements in the phone system that accrued over the years - including the rotary dial, touch-tone dialing, and other engineering advancements that I don't need to describe here.  I need not say that the noncommercial users benefited mightily from those advancements right along with the commercial users - without being charged a dime for them.

Third, you're being invited to believe that bandwidth is a zero-sum game:  In other words, whatever the commercial user takes means that there's less that's available to you.   Bandwidth is not a zero-sum game, as anyone who first hit the net with a 24K modem can easily see.   In fact, it is precisely a healthy commercial business base that will be paying for the solution to the "final-mile" problem that still exists in many rural areas, and for the installation of mega-speed upgrades that are already being engineered.  

Fourth, you're being invited to believe that net-neutrality (here, meaning charging everyone the same) is "simply treating the internet like a utility".  (I just heard this silly argument a few minutes ago on HSN.)  Really?  Uuuh...let's see.  Is there some reason you don't leave the lights blazing in your house all night?  Is there some reason people in Detroit are getting their water cut off? 

Wait for it...it's coming to me now.   Oh, yeah.  It seems that with utilities we DO charge people according to the amount of electricity, water, garbage pickup, etc. that they use, don't we?  Use more, you get charged more.  What a concept.  And once again, that means that commercial users are both PROVIDED MORE and CHARGED MORE...because they NEED MORE. 

Which brings me to the last point:  You and I don't need the level of internet service that commercial firms need.  I've been responsible for provisioning internet services for a company (yes, one of ours that got bought out), and I can assure you that if it were not possible to provision lines that were higher speed than those that are needed in our homes, we could not have done business remotely.

Would anyone suggest that, on the basis of "power neutrality", we should only provide a single 120/220 line to the Boeing plant?  If someone came along and suggested to you that we can't let GM "suck up all the electricity", how loudly would we  laugh in their faces?  Might we not, instead, get GM to pay for building out the capacity to accommodate their requirements?  I think we can work our way around to that answer eventually.

There's absolutely nothing inherently problematic about tiered service delivery when it comes to the Internet.  This is just another attempt by the Obama administration to create victims where there aren't any, and it's yet another knee-jerk reaction based on their clearly-demonstrated inherent dislike of business itself.  Nothing more, and nothing less.