Likes of Google & Facebook monopolize the internet by forcing ISPs to charge consumers higher prices for bandwidth while they hog the internet highway for free. They use stooges like you to call this arrangement "free and open." Orwellian manipulation! Repeal "net neutrality."
Internet bandwidth in the U.S. is unconscionably expensive today for the consumer BECAUSE OF "net neutrality." Meanwhile, freeloaders like Google & Facebook have launched a surreptitious campaign to bamboozle the consumers into thinking "net neutrality" is good for them.
Repeal of NN doesn't give but restores power to one set of businesses (ISPs) to negotiate with other businesses (Facebook Google, Netflix) whom govt has given artificial power with NN. When businesses compete, consumers always win. When they don't, you get monopolies.
People who have been scared by slick PR campaigns into thinking ISPS will charge them more without NN fail to realize that they are already paying more to ISPs because of NN.
ISPs charge higher prices to consumers for internet access today because they have to recoup their infrastructure investments somehow. As NN prohibits ISPs from charging Facebook, Google, Netflix a premium for faster access, they end up increasing consumer prices.
That makes consumers angry and they understandably think of ISPs as the villains of the piece, and trust them even less, never realizing that villainy may just lie elsewhere. Facebook, Google, Netflix escape consumer blame by hiding behind the soothing "net neutrality" salve.
Without "net neutrality," ISPs will be able to recover more of their infrastructure investments from the likes of Facebook, Netflix, Google, and hence be able to reduce prices to the consumers. New ISPs will also emerge with varied business models. Competition will reduce prices.
Without "net neutrality" it is conceivable for ISPs to have a business model in which they provide consumers internet access totally free of cost, and make all their money purely from content providers, the same business model as used by Facebook & Google today.
Without repealing "net neutrality," such a business model is infeasible. Imagine what would happen if govt mandated that Facebook & Google must charge the same price to every business, no matter how much any business advertised using their platforms?
Yes, freer market is a bit unpredictable as to the exact path it takes from here to there, but in the long run it always delivers better and cheaper products and services to consumers than govt-mandated-business-winners-and-losers model.
Govt must protect consumers against predatory business practices, which it can do with or without "net neutrality." But govt has no business protecting one set of mega-businesses against another set of mega-businesses by throwing its weight in with one side over the other.
Just think:
-- Netflix dictates which movies & shows you can watch on it
-- Facebook dictates which paid ads are served to you
-- Google dictates which paid search results are served to you prominently
-- But mere prospect of an ISP prioritizing anything -- smelling salts!
-- Netflix dictates which movies & shows you can watch on it
-- Facebook dictates which paid ads are served to you
-- Google dictates which paid search results are served to you prominently
-- But mere prospect of an ISP prioritizing anything -- smelling salts!
Just think why Facebook and Google don't charge consumers a subscription fee, but Netflix does? The reason is Facebook and Google make their money from other businesses through "prioritized" ads (yes the same fearful "prioritization" of content). Netflix doesn't.
How many Comcast subscribers would mind if Comcast, just like Facebook and Google, provided free internet bandwidth, but made its money from other businesses like Facebook, Google, Netflix, et al? "Net neutrality" forbids such a business model for Comcast.
People who don't have a clue how revenue optimization, pricing, or a myriad of other intricacies of B-to-B or B-to-C business models work, nonetheless have been sold a bill of goods with a cute slogan "net neutrality", which is anything but neutral.
Who supports "net neutrality?" Well of course Facebook, Google, and Netflix, because they get a free ride on telecoms infrastructure, all mandated by the govt. Consumers pay hefty bills for internet bandwidth, so Google, Facebook, Netflix can make hefty profits. Sweet deal!
Don't get me wrong. I hate telecoms like Comcast too, who are no angels either, but I am not letting my personal feelings cloud my policy judgment because of a slick marketing campaign scaring me into thinking ISPs providing faster lanes at a premium price spells doom.
Govt's job is to protect the consumer, not protect one set of mega-businesses against business negotiations from another set of mega-businesses by tilting the playing field. Let the mega-businesses duke it out among themselves. When that happens, consumers always win.
The dirty secret of political economy is that all monopolies are created only with govt collusion. "Net neutrality" is one such collusion. By supporting it, Google, Facebook, and Netflix don't have consumers' best interests at heart, only their own. Get wise to it.
