My Thoughts on Net Neutrality

A couple of days ago, I asked my Facebook friends to share their thoughts on Net Neutrality.  The overwhelming majority of people who commented oppose Net Neutrality on the premise that government intervention stifles innovation.  Now that a couple of days have passed, I think it's fitting that I answer my own question.

Before I answer the question though, I am going to take a step back and address my friends' position that government involvement stifles innovation.  At a macro level, I generally agree with that statement.  In fact, I'll take things even a step further, and say that governmental interference not only creates unintended problems, it's also horribly ineffective at addressing these problems once they appear.  Social Security is a prime example.  The overall assertion, however, is a very black and white statement, and we live in a gray world.

For the purpose of this discussion, I am going to posit that government and business are opposite sides of the same coin.  Government is corrupt and inefficient.  Business, however, is corrupt and greedy.  Business, left to its own devices, will chase profit at the expense of everything else.  This greed is why America has a minimum wage, a 40 hour work week, environmental laws and anti-trust legislation.

I have no problem with Internet service providers making a profit.  I do, however, believe in Net Neutrality.  I have a problem with ISPs becoming the de facto gatekeepers of the internet.  I have a problem with the idea that ISPs can force vendors to pay for faster service on the front end, and then force subscribers to pay for faster service on the back end.  I also have a problem with business having the ability to slow down or effectively block traffic that they consider competition or objectionable.  This is the alternative to net neutrality.  Innovation and the free flow of ideas is still stifled, but in a different way.  It's business stifling the competition instead of the government.  Net neutrality is designed to promote competition and information by making sure that an ISP cannot impede traffic flowing across its network.

Let me use a couple of hypothetical situations to make my point.  Let's say that Disney buys Mediacom.  Not likely, but it could happen.  Disneycom decides to block or significantly slow all internet traffic going to streaming companies that compete with NBC, Disney, Pixar, etc. unless they pony up some extra cash.  How does this benefit the consumer?  Alternatively, let's say that the new Comcast CEO is a hard core Catholic who decided to slow or block traffic to sites that have to do with pornography, contraception, homosexuality or whatever.  How does this promote the free flow of ideas?  As I said, these are hypothetical situations to make a point.

Like I said, I generally agree that government is inefficient and stifles innovation.  I also, however, believe that business is greedy and will do anything it can to make as much as possible.  In this case, I believe that net neutrality is the best option for the consumer in the long run.