Net Neutrality Is Completely Lopsided

Isn’t it funny?

Every content provider on the internet seems to stand with “net neutrality,” a set of rules and regulations that would require that companies providing internet services to consumers (ISP’s) can not slow down the bandwidth of any particular website.

It makes sense that those of us who create content would agree that such a world would be painful, and critics are piling on, suggesting that it is the greed of ISP billionaires and a desire to separate the world into haves and have nots that are forcing this reality upon us.

Even Medium, the service on which I just this morning contemplated switching my domain ( to, officially, is running a banner touting that the world is doomed if content providers are required to pay ISP’s for consumers to have faster access to their content.

Unfortunately, that is not reality.

The reality is that some companies went about building an infrastructure for the internet. Those companies are required to upkeep and maintain the internet. The foundation for that infrastructure is based on laws regarding cable companies, which segmented Americans into monopolized zones of authority, relieving cable companies of any requirements to compete for decades.

The terrible PR from that last maneuver are still present, and so it’s particularly easy for those who provide us with the content we love to turn us further against those we already hate.

What does net neutrality mean, then?

The fear is that a company like Comcast would block certain websites or services from running on its infrastructure, or that it would charge content providers, like Netflix, extra for high speed access, otherwise slowing down their services.

Content providers say this is bad for consumers, as it allows ISP’s to choose which services are favored, may price out smaller content providers (even though these are unlikely to be slowed down as they are not draining bandwidth like Facebook or Reddit are), and will result in consumers being required to pay for content to help keep websites running quickly.

The real reality is that consumers will be saddled with those costs anyway, unless we improve internet technology to greatly increase its efficiency.

The real reality is that ISP’s will be required to charge consumers more to expand or support their infrastructure, whether that be a flat increase across the board or “data buckets,” much like mobile carriers impose.

The real reality is that the internet will be classified as a “utility,” and companies that don’t increase prices will be bailed out or subsidized by tax payers. . . which, again, puts costs on consumers.

The real reality is that data hogs such as Facebook, Netflix and Youtube, which make billions off of users consuming content, could simply spend dollars on research to improve the technology with which we consume the internet, reducing their drain on an ISP’s bandwidth.

The real reality is that “net neutrality” is a mission of content providers to avoid being required to pay for the data they use as every American is expected to do.

They would rather ISP’s charge us for their hogging the world’s bandwidth or that we be required to bail out ISP’s once they are classified as essential utilities.

All of these maneuvers are particularly helpful to the business of content providers, but not ISP’s. So let’s get into that fear-mongering one more time.

A tweet was posted:

Imagine the stupidity of a consumer who logs on to the internet, can’t access any of their favorite content, and simply continues to pay for access to said internet?

They really think people are THAT stupid.

The real reality is that consumers would not put up with this. They would not pay. Other, more efficient internet providers would come to dominate the market (if the government gives them the chance), or mobile carriers will use their networks to swoop in.

The real reality is that these fear tactics are shameful, but you wouldn’t know it. The people required to tell you what’s shameful are the ones using these tactics to support “Net Neutrality.”