Net Neutrality is a bad thing. You may not know this because of the widely successful campaign in favor of it. After all, who would be against “neutrality?”
Well, it turns out, the name is very misleading. There’s nothing “neutral” about net neutrality. In fact, it gives the big internet companies like Google or Amazon an unfair advantage over smaller companies. That’s because both the big companies and the small ones end up paying the same rate for their bandwidth.
In other words, the internet provider charges a small news outlet the same rate as it charges Netflix. This is because Net Neutrality rules prohibit ISPs from charging more for high-bandwidth users.
On the other end, you have bandwidth consumption inequality. Not every internet-user uses the same amount of bandwidth, but everyone is charged the same for a basic internet package. It makes it so 72-year-old grandmother pays as much for her internet as the 21-year-old gamer who uses 100,000 times more bandwidth than her each month.
With net neutrality gone, these consumers will have more control over what they pay.
ISP’s will offer basic packages that offer optimal speeds for, say, 10 websites and sub-par speeds for all the rest. It will cost half as much of a normal basic package today. This is perfect for anyone who mostly only uses the internet to check their social media.
So no, it isn’t the end of the internet as we know it.
Internet Service Providers will actually be forced to compete with each other because, now, they’re able to differentiate their services. No internet service will be the same, meaning all providers will be incentivized to improve and build better networks.
They’ll also be motivated to expand into more neighborhoods and towns where only one provider exists or none at all. Why? Because, currently, expanding into rural neighborhoods must be profitable for the internet service provider. Providing fiber-optic wires to rural neighborhoods where only the basic package will ever sell isn’t profitable. Now, they can match their supply with the demand.
The mass hysteria on the left has dragged discourse on this issue to new and shocking lows.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who has been a major proponent of repealing Net Neutrality rules, has received countless death threats and nasty racial slurs.
“That kind of name calling and hysteria is disappointing but it’s not surprising. … So much of this hysteria is simply misplaced,” said Pai. This was in response to several celebrities launching open campaigns against him, such as Jimmy Kimmel.
Even Pai’s attempt at levity, which was taken by fear-mongering liberals as condescension, was met with threats of legal action. In a video, where Pai dressed up as Santa Claus with a Lightsaber, Pai jokingly showed all of the ridiculous things one can still do after net neutrality is gone. One such thing was “ruin a meme” where Pai danced along to “Harlem Shake.” Well, now the DJ who released that song is threatening to sue Pai, saying he’s “appalled” to be associated with Net neutrality’s repeal in any way.