The Net Neutrality Strawman: No One Is Stopping Broadband Providers From Charging More

from the understanding-net-neutrality dept

Net neutrality proponents.... would prohibit Internet service providers from using price to address the ever-growing popularity of streaming video and other bandwidth-intensive programs that cause bottlenecks.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

While I don't think that passing laws in favor of net neutrality is necessarily the right way to go about things, it really is amazing to watch anti-net neutrality types completely make up bogus arguments in favor of their position. We pointed this out exactly two years ago, when lobbyist Mike McCurry wrote a blatantly bogus editorial, claiming that Google didn't pay a cent for its broadband bills, and that it was arguing in favor of net neutrality to avoid having to pay for broadband. This was an outright lie -- and I challenged McCurry to agree to pay Google's bandwidth bill. Not surprisingly, McCurry declined -- though, the organization he represents, Hands Off The Internet, has shown that it reads Techdirt and doesn't mind quoting us out of context when it furthers its telco-funded argument.Yet, here we are again, with anti-net neutrality supporters are making completely bogus claims about how net neutrality somehow prevents them from charging more. The Wall Street Journal is running an anti-Kevin Martin editorial , claiming that his decision to sanction Comcast for traffic shaping is a victory for net neutrality supporters, and then stating:That's simply untrue. No one is saying they can't charge more for bandwidth. Again, does anyone really believe that Google isn't paying a ridiculously large bandwidth bill? Instead, as Tim Lee describes, net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with price . What the telcos are really trying to do is get you to payfor thebandwidth. That's because internet connectivity has always been about paying for the connection from your home to the "cloud." We each pay for that connectivity from the ends, to the middle of the network. So, note, all of those connections are fully paid for.What the telcos are trying to do with breaking net neutrality isget companies providing services to payfor connectivity from that middle out to users. As you'll recall, those users have already paid for that bandwidth themselves. So, the telcos are, in effect, looking to double charge for bandwidth already charged for.This has huge implications when you think about it. After all, if everyone providing content and services to the middle also has to pay to deliver that to the ends, then it makes the initial connection that muchvaluable. Telcos may be shooting themselves in the foot by trying to do this. In double charging companies for the bandwidth consumers are already paying for, they may make it such that consumers are a lot less willing to pay for it, since it will be a lot less useful. Note thatsays that the telcos can't charge what they want for the initial bandwidth -- from the customer to the middle. Net neutrality advocates are simply saying it doesn't make sense to then chargeto send content from the middle outward. After all, it's already paid for, and who pays for "half a connection" anyway? The reason you pay for a connection is to get on the net. Not to get to the middle where the next tollbooth exists.

Filed Under: double charging, net neutrality, prices