Net Neutrality and the Internet Slow-Lane

Net neutrality has been in the news a lot recently in light of a recent court decision which struck a major blow to the FCC's ability to regulate ISPs.  Providers like Time Warner Cable are already exploiting new rules that allow for ISPs to charge for internet data both upstream, from content providers such as Youtube, Facebook, and Netflix, as well as downstream, from internet users like myself and the reader.  Furthermore, these companies are eagerly planning to charge all customers extra to have faster internet service, which will undoubtedly mean the bare minimum internet offerings will actually be much slower than they are today, with little chance of any savings for the customers.  Understandably, the denizens of the internet are upset.

A lot has been said on both sides, and the majority of people who know about the issue seem in favor of net neutrality.  Many have argued that, since all downloaded content has to be uploaded first, telecom companies are basically planning to charge double for the same amount of data.  Others have expressed concern that this will stifle innovation on the internet, since large companies will be able to pay for faster internet, whereas the next scrappy start-up might not be able to compete because of slow internet. There are some who are calling for the internet to be reclassified as a common carrier service, which would allow the FCC to bring back net neutrality.  Others argue that this will lead to worse and more numerous consequences.  They're all missing the point though.

In 1996, Congress passed a law that made available $200B in funding for internet infrastructure based on a coaxial/fiber hybrid model.  Telecommunications companies made various proposals on state and local levels, and agreed to expand service in exchange for local monopolies and federal funding.  Notably, these companies agreed to provide open networks (so that multiple ISPs could provide service over the same infrastructure), to keep prices down, and to provide nationwide, symmetrical service upwards of 45 MB/s, all to be delivered by the year 2000.  Not only was this deadline not met, but it is now 18 years since the passing of the law, and the average US download speed (not to mention upload speed) is still just 29.5 MB/s.  On top of that, cable and fiber networks are closed to competition, not symmetrical, and rates have risen much faster than we were promised.  The word that I would use for what happened is theft.

It's neither here nor there that the internet is an "information service" that is not liable to the same level of FCC regulation as it would be if we labeled it "common carrier" instead.  The fact of the matter is, telecom companies stole hundreds of billions of dollars from America, while giving us weak service and making us pay extra for the privilege of being lied to.  Splitting hairs over the FCC's categorization of the internet is a disgustingly successful shift in the terms of debate by the people who stacked the deck in the first place. Anything less than outright socialization of internet infrastructure is pitifully kowtowing to criminals.