I've been monitoring the recent reactions and reports regarding the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's decree to endorse 'Net Neutrality.' Sorry, people, but some of you are not getting it.
In deciding that common internet providers/carriers (internet service providers, or ISPs) cannot slow down certain bandwidth-intensive internet content providers (i.e. Netflix and Amazon) or charge extra for their use, the FCC embraced and imposed a time-tested policy of rational marketplace fairness. However, ATT and Verizon don't seem to want to 'get' it.
Specifically, this policy decision forces ISPs to provide a consistent transmission platform, regardless of the technical 'heaviness' of the content.
Now before anyone says, “Hey, doesn't it cost them more to provide streaming video or music from Amazon and Netflix?”, read on.
Yes, it does...IN THEORY.
It may be more expensive to provide streaming services, but IF ATT AND VERIZON WERE TO PAY MORE TO INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES, RATHER THAN CORPORATE PROFITS, THE ISSUE WOULD BE AT LEAST MODERATELY MOOT.
Hmm, sounds a little like National Socialism, doesn't it?
The vilified Adolf Hitler was charismatically emblematic as he was pragmatic. He decreed that government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation. While we cannot necessarily make such a cavalier statement today, we CAN say that the profit interest of companies must be tempered when it is in conflict with the public good. In case you need a brief history lesson to understand this, read on.
In the 1906, America enacted the Pure Food and Drug Act. Before that legislative proclamation, it was permissible to add sand to bags of sugar. I'm not kidding! Until then, profit motive allowed such consumer health atrocities! The government was acting in a nearly National Socialistic way to provide for universal food safety. It was a rational way of keeping people safe, and leveling an ethically unjust economic playing field.
Just like today's FCC affirmation of Net Neutrality sends a definite message to ISPs that they cannot discriminately charge more potentially date-intensive transmissions.
Can they charge more OVERALL?
Of course they CAN. But, greater cost-scales (supposedly to 'cover' the costs of data-streaming) would be shared by ALL of the ISP's subscribers, and tempered by what the economic votes of consumers might bare. So, an ISP shocking its customers with too much of a price increase would likely face a 'penalty' of attrition. And the marketplace would create its own eventual equilibrium.
Gee, Hitler was right, wasn't he?! Rational economics based on 'fairness' CAN work!
Who would have thought it?
Not the greedy ATT and Verizon!
NOTE: This essay was written by Kevin James, Acting Director of NSM Media, and may or may not be the endorsed belief of the National Socialist Movement. Comrade James has a bachelors degree in broadcast journalism and production from a major American university, and has freelanced in the media since 1988. Currently, besides being employed by a major internet IT company, Kevin James is the Acting Director of NSM Media, the co-host of NSM Weekend, consulting producer with NSM Worldtalk, a blogger on various NSM Media outlets, and a freelancer in independent video producer and PR consultant. He seems to have some awareness, background, and understanding of 'net neutrality.'