Net Neutrality


Net neutrality is NOT “fundamental to free speech”. Big companies will pay the most if bandwidth providers begin charging the biggest users for bandwidth, and they are the ones complaining. The “little guy” and the “free speech” straw men detract from that fact.

If big companies like Comcast or AT&T “could censor your voice and make it harder to speak up online”, then so can big companies like Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, and Google, and Youtube. And CNN, CBS, FNC, FBC, MSNBC, and anyone else.

Net neutrality laws favor one group of Big Companies over a different group of BIg Companies. One group of lobbyists beat out another group of lobbyists.

But the biggest bully that wins with Net Neutrality is government, because it is another power grab by regulators with delusions of wisdom they do not have.

The difference is that without Net Neutrality, the lesser user of Internet bandwidth would help pay for the extra usage of others.

But Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, and Google, and Youtube, but they do that even with Net Neutrality. These BIG companies postured as the guardians of a “democratic” Internet but have been very active in trying to find ways to suppress opinions that do not comport with the guidelines from on high.


Net neutrality is NOT “fundamental to competition”, because it opens the Internet to competition for the bandwidth. Google is already competing in the Internet Service Provider space with its rollout of bandwidth across the nation. Why can we not have competition in the other direction?

A true free market competition for bandwidth usage might give incentive for more investors to provide more bandwidth alternatives. This could have happened much, much earlier in phone service if the federal government had not conceded a monopoly to AT&T, for example.


The Internet was not required when Paradox, Compuserve, AOL, and other online computer services arrived, or transistors, or many other things. If the Internet starts looking like Cable TV, the free fall of revenues would happen apace, and other services would appear. Phone providers would have a wide open opportunity to exploit the breach outside the bandwidth constrictors, just like Compuserve and AOL did before.


Limits on the cat videos we watch? That’s the best you’ve got of the vital things we’d lose? More likely the the ISPs would go for the deepest pockets, and those deepest pockets (youtube, hulu, Netflix, adverstisers) would get a push to innovate, like band together for more competition with ISPs.


Government already meddles too much in private trade, costing us all the figurative “arm and leg”, and tying down innovation with too much regulation. We need LESS, not more!


%d bloggers like this: