Internet bandwidth works in a similar manner to the electric grid: there is a certain capacity, and those who use a higher rate for long periods of time take a high percentage of that amount. Unlike the internet, those who use most of the electricity are paying for it. If this was not the case, then brownouts would become very common.

Why is it that we don’t understand the same for the internet? Because big tech companies, the highest users of internet bandwidth, don’t want to pay their fair share.

An analogy might make the problem more obvious. Let us assume that the internet is an “all you can eat” buffet. Let us then assume that the restaurant is able to serve what an average customer eats for $19 dollars and sells it at $20, providing a modest 5% profit. Let us also assume that the restaurant purchases its food supply 30 days at a time.

The current internet customer base, from the average consumer to big corporations, can be represented as 20 people. The big tech firms are those who can consume meals for 3 people per day, and there are 2 of them. Then we have mid sized tech firms who consume 2 meals for 2 people per day, and there are 2 of them. Then there are the average consumers who consume food for 1 person per day, and there are 12 of them. Then there are the low level consumers who consume food for 1/2 person per day, and there are 4 of them.

In our scenario, we have:

2 people / 3 meals

2 people / 2 meals

12 people / 1 meal

4 people / .5 meal

Under Net “Neutrality,” They all pay the same rate (the so called “equality” or “fairness”), which is $20 per day. The company purchased food for 30 days at a rate of 1 per person per day, giving it 600 meals at the cost of $11,400 for the meals.

In one day, 2 people consumed 6 meals, 2 consumed 4, 12 consumed 12, and 4 consumed 2, leaving a total of 24 meals consumed. In ten days, 240 meals are consumed. In twenty days, 480 meals are consumed. In 5 more days, all 600 meals are consumed. 20 people paid $400 per day for 25 days, bringing in $10,000.

The restaurant is thus out of food for 5 days and lost $1,400.

The restaurant has two options: it could (a) limit how much “food” is available at any given time or (b) charge a higher rate.

Under option (a), everyone could be slowed down in their food intake so they only consume 75% of what they eat by the end of the day. Thus, 2 people only consume 2.25, 2 people consume only 1.5, 12 people consume only .75, and 4 consume only 37.5. In total, they consume 18 meals per day and bring in $400. Thus, they bring the company their original 5% profit and have extra bandwidth that isn’t being used. The company is fine but everyone the vast majority of people don’t get their needs met.

Under option (b), there will be no food for the final 5 days and everyone would see an increase of 14% or $22.8 per day. This leaves people with a severe shortage of what they want plus having to pay far more.

Option (b) would be impossible for the average consume to accept, so most internet companies currently rely on option (a): everyone’s bandwidth is slowed down.

This is clearly not acceptable, so why do we allow big tech companies to not pay their fair share? Because they are the biggest donors to politicians who support Net “Neutrality” and own the media outlets that have spread such blatant lies against it.

In order to protect the consumers and ensure a fair, competitive market, we must stop all attempts by big tech firms from passing off their high internet usage to consumers. It is not fair to penalize the average consumer nor is it fair to allow the corrupt stranglehold the tech companies have over the internet to continue.

Such practices like Net “Neutrality” are the hallmark of an oligarchical socialistic system that treats the average person as a serf who should be happy to receive the very minimum while those in power enjoy a lavish lifestyle. It is not based on equality but the very opposite. It is time that big tech firms stop stealing from the poor.