As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Net Neutrality Simplified

This article was written by in Consumer. 7 comments.

Depending on how you get your news, the topic of network neutrality can seem boring, or confusing, or both. Possibly you haven’t yet heard about it, or you’ve already formed an opinion. The reports I see are too often complicated, lacking reasoned arguments and full of hyperbolic guesses as to what the future might hold. Not to mention that both supporters and critics say that their side is the one promoting “freedom”. I’ve read all the boringly-written PDFs about the FCC’s new guidelines for you, and here’s what it means.

Same as it is now

Enacting an official policy of network neutrality means that the Internet you use now will not change. Broadband providers have ideas about limiting access to some content for customers who don’t pay as much, or aren’t on their networks.

As the specific FCC guideline is written:

broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications

Without Net Neutrality

For example, imagine if you needed to be a Verizon FiOS subscriber in order to access Star Trek fans who didn’t have FiOS would throw a fit (those same Star Trek fans might recall this actually happened on AOL many years ago). As an alternative, the owners of work out a deal with the other big broadband companies and they say, “okay, fine, you can have access to it, but your broadband bill will be $5 more per month”. Meanwhile, FiOS subscribers aren’t paying $5 a month for the Web site. Sound fair?

Here’s another made-up example of a world without net neutrality: you have AT&T broadband at home, and a Sprint mobile phone through work. Your company uses Google Apps, but AT&T decides they don’t like Google, so you can’t get to your work e-mail from home. Does that sound like a good idea to you? If you’re against that idea, then you are in favor of net neutrality.

No reason for prices to change

The Internet was built by a bunch of nerdy scientists to be open and accessible to everyone. It isn’t free, because moving data requires paying people to do various jobs. At my house, we’re paying about $60 / month for some very fast Internet. Critics of net neutrality claim that “new rules” will force providers to raise prices. But remember, neutrality is what we have now, as it’s been regulated by the FCC in the past on a case-by-case basis, so there’s no logical reason to raise prices for anyone. Besides, $60 a month is almost highway robbery as it is.

Internet providers charge more for faster speeds, and less for slower speeds. Critics of neutrality want to invent new ways to charge people in addition to this one simple rule.

Regarding congestion and illegal activities

The FCC’s published guidelines (they’re just getting started writing the actual rules), make exceptions that give Internet providers the ability to manage network congestion and prevent illegal activities. So if you’re on cable, and you’ve got neighbors downloading (and uploading) 68 gigabytes of Star Trek movies, providers can find a way to stop your speeds from being negatively affected. The new rules do not prevent throttling, and they do not encourage illegal activities.

Avoiding an ugly fight

I’m speculating here, but ensuring network neutrality will also mean side-stepping huge Public Relations nightmares for broadband companies. I think a provider has the right to consider limiting access to certain content or applications, and I think it would be massively stupid of them to go through with it. Millions of people would be instantly enraged.

Back when you needed to be an AOL subscriber to access, they got complaint after complaint, and it was less than a year before access was returned to everyone. Why would anyone want to go through with that again?

Preserving a Free and Open Internet, at the FCC’s web site (which is accessible to everyone)

Published or updated October 23, 2009.

Email Email Print Print
About the author

Smithee formerly lived primarily on credit cards and the good will of his friends. He is a newbie to personal finance but quickly learning from his past mistakes. You can follow him on Twitter, where his user name is @SmitheeConsumer. View all articles by .

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar 1 Anonymous

I’m a big fan of net neutrality and, while I usually oppose government involvement, this is one area where I think that it’s beneficial.

It’s a shame something similar can’t be done with TV channels…as a hockey fan who subscribes to DirecTV, I’ve been without the Versus channel (which carries several NHL games) since the beginning of the year. This is because Comcast…a bitter rival of DirecTV…owns the channel and, presumably, is attempting to charge DirecTV an arm and a leg for it. The same goes for many DirecTV sports fans in the Philadelphia market who cannot watch Phillies or Flyers games because they run on Comcast channels. Likewise, DirecTV is just as guilty for owning exclusive rights to out-of-market NFL games, meaning that if you’re a NJ-based Raiders fan such as myself, you need to subscribe to DirecTV to watch them.

Reply to this comment

avatar 2 Anonymous

This image sums things up pretty well imo: link

Reply to this comment

avatar 3 Anonymous

Violations against network neutraility these days tend to be more subtle and insidious than
complete lack of access. They involve such things as de-prioritizing certain traffic such that service times are unacceptably long (or demanding that content sites pay apremium so that traffic speeds to and from them is not slowed).

Reply to this comment

avatar 4 Anonymous

So where do things like ESPN360 fit in? This is a sports streaming website that is freely available to people with certain ISPs. Under this model, the ISP pays for access and then makes the service available to their subscribers.

Reply to this comment

avatar 5 Smithee

That’s interesting, and annoying. Personally, I’m tempted to e-mail my ISP and ask them to reduce whatever portion of my monthly bill goes toward their fee for including it, since I will never use it.

But I do also sympathize with people who aren’t allowed to access it (more here: link)

Reply to this comment

avatar 6 Anonymous

Imagining a net without neutrality is scary.

Consumerist? Sorry, Verizon and Comcast are limiting traffic to your site because you are bad for their business.

Pft, keep your hands off my internet.

Reply to this comment

avatar 7 Anonymous

I don’t think it needs to be legislated to be quite honest. The world wide web has existed for over 15 years without serious infractions. I don’t think that companies will be stupid enough to try to move in the other direction. They will most definitely lose customers that way.

Reply to this comment

Leave a Comment

Note: Use your name or a unique handle, not the name of a website or business. No deep links or business URLs are allowed. Spam, including promotional linking to a company website, will be deleted. By submitting your comment you are agreeing to these terms and conditions.