Net Neutrality

Generally, most geeks support net neutrality. Being a geek, I wonder why I think differently than most of my brethren. Net Neutrality is the idea that all Internet traffic is treated equally. Proponents of net neutrality are generally seeking legislation that enforces that Internet providers cannot prioritize or throttle traffic. On the surface, especially for geeks who desire digital overload, net neutrality seems good. However, the idea that we need regulation to keep things unregulated is nonsense at best and ludicrous at worst. Scour the Internet for some articles on net neutrality and you're likely to find scores of geeks extolling its virtues and complaining about the practice of this or that Internet Service Provider. Here are a few examples:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/net-neutrality-concerns-raised-about-comcasts-xbox-on-demand-service.ars?comments=1#comments-bar

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/02/the-importance-of-net-neutrality.html

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/virtual-freedom-the-master-switch-and-internet-architecture---uninhibited-robust-and-wide-open.ars

Take, for example, that Comcast throttles P2P (e.g. Bit Torrent) traffic. People lose their minds over this stuff! I lose my mind reading about them losing their minds. It's utter and complete non-sense. Comcast made a business decision that by throttling P2P users they were providing a higher quality of service to their customer base. That the throttling provides a higher quality of service to their customer base is, in my view, not even up for debate. If you're a geek, put yourself into the position of running Comcast's Internet business. Would you make the same decision? I submit that if one has even a modicum of logic and rationality, one would make the same business decision. Comcast isn't denying you service, and they aren't violating their terms of service. Therefore, you have no legal ground for action against them. Not only is there no legal ground for action against them, but the market place is rife with alternatives. If you don't like Comcast's business practices, switch to a different provider or, God forbid, abstain from the Internet completely! Internet access is not a right. Unthrottled or "neutral" Internet access is not a right. Get over it. Let the free market work. The Internet became the digital behemoth that mankind enjoys precisely because of the lack of regulation and interference from the state.

The free market works. If there are players in the market that are not pleasing their customers, then an alternative will be made available. Rules and regulations do not work. If providers want to collude together and have teaming agreements to accelerate one another's traffic, let them. It's business. If Comcast wants to try to squeeze Netflix and get Netflix to pay Comcast for traffic that crosses their network boundary, let them. Customers will speak with their almighty dollars if they don't like the practices of a business. What if Time Warner prioritizes the service (traffic priority and technical support) for their business class customers over the service provided to consumers? They are free to do so, and it's generally good business. Countless other businesses have model that operate in precisely this manner and no one is calling for regulation of many of those businesses.

There is a large-scale movement in this country to protect the consumer. Net Neutrality is presented under the guise that it will protect the consumer. However, if net neutrality is allowed to be legislated, it will undoubtedly have the unintended consequence of hurting consumers. Regulation, by definition, is the opposite of and stifles innovation. No sane person would argue that innovation hurts consumers. By simple logic, then, regulation hurts consumers. Net neutrality is no different. Wake up people!