An open letter to Tumblr about Net Neutrality
To Whom it May Concern (which is basically everybody),
As a regular Tumblr user, I was disappointed to see Tumblrâs open support of so-called âNet Neutrality.â I find it terribly ironic that a company which is able to exist solely because of the current state of internet freedom, supports regulation that would essentially hand over internet liberty to the federal government. âSave the Internetâ? From what, exactly? Conditions that allowed your company to flourish? HowâŚunselfish of you.
In the spirit of liberty, I celebrate everyoneâs right to openly express any opinion, regardless of how much I might disagree with it. That being said, Iâd like to exercise my right to free speech by pointing out that your support of âNet Neutralityâ is either misguided or intentionally misleading.Â
1. Â Net Neutrality is a solution for a problem that doesnât exist.
Supporters of so-called âNet Neutralityâ will tell you that the government needs to have the power to regulate how ISPs prioritize their connection speeds to ensure that they donât favor one internet user over another. But hereâs what they never tell you: Itâs a fictitious problem. It only exists theoretically. This, of course, is nothing new. The government is famous for concocting problems that it can only âsolveâ by assuming more control. Understand, Iâm not suggesting that ISPs donât prioritize connection speeds. They do. But often this is a good thing, not a bad thing. An internet company should be able to prioritize, say, Netflix over CrazyAndSillyCats.com. It only makes sense.
But hereâs the rub: it is natural for the free to self-adjust, but history has shown that it is decidedly unnatural for the Federal Government to do so. Â If CrazyAndSillyCats.com suddenly becomes an international success, and consumers suddenly demand faster access, they get to vote with their pocketbooks and only the service providers who adjust will succeed. Ten years ago, nobody could have imagined the success that a company like Netflix would have streaming HD movies on demand. Â At first, the service was clunky and slow, but now that consumers have demanded the content, ISPs have adjusted and Netflix movies and shows can be streamed without interruption. Â The Federal Government is not capable of that kind of rapid adjustment.
2. Â Net Neutrality will ultimately lead to censorship.
The only developed countries in the world that do not a have free and open internet are countries where the government will simply not allow it to be free. The internet is censored in China. The internet is censored in Cuba. The internet is censored all over the Middle East. This is something that we in America have never had to fear because the government lacked the legal authority to censor, but by deeming the internet a âpublic utility,â thatâs exactly what would happen. Why would we want to voluntarily give the power to censor to government?
Right now, internet content is free and open and controlled by no one (generally speaking). People can exchange information freely precisely because of the fact that the government doesnât control it. Users arenât required to have licenses to post things deemed controversial by those in power. I know, I knowâŚyou might think that itâs far fetched to suggest that the federal government would suddenly start blocking certain users from saying certain things online. Thatâs tinfoil hat stuff. but the truth is, itâs already happening. The FCC censors what can and canât be said or shown on over-the-air television, radio and satellite mediums because these have been deemed âpublic utilities.â Why are we so confident that this wonât happen to the internet â with this administration or when a new one comes to power?
Furthermore, in the past, this hasnât just applied to obscene content, it has applied to political speech as well:
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commissionâs view, honest, equitable and balanced.
In other words, every political view shared by every broadcaster had to be monitored and approved by government. This isnât liberty. On the contrary. Fortunately this terrible law that censored broadcasters has been repealed. Look, if you think the government wonât attempt to regulate political speech (or punish certain behavior or try to control certain behavior) on the internet by fines, selective licensing, or other coercive measures, youâre being short-sighted and utterly naive.
3. Â Net Neutrality will usher in internet taxes.
There are some that claim that this isnât true because taxes arenât mandated in the FCC regulations, but read the fine print. By changing the classification of the internet, the federal government opens up the possibility of state and local utility taxes, which is, of course, another way of saying that local and state governments will tax the internet (because thatâs what governments do. If they can tax it, they will). Hereâs one analysis from the Progressive Policy Institute:
By regulating broadband service under Title IIâŚbroadband would likely become burdened with a host of new state and local taxes and fees, the kind we pay on our monthly home and/or wireless phone bills. These taxes and fees are normally passed on to consumers; when they rise, consumers end up paying more. Expect the same with broadband.
According to Litan and Singer, these new state and local fees will increase by $15 billion, impacting consumers to varying degrees. The average American household with a fixed broadband connection would pay in the range of an additional $51 to $83 per year, and those with one smartphone or other wireless broadband device (tablet) would pay $72 more annually.
But local taxes arenât the only ones that will show up on the average consumerâs bill. The FCC has long required fees of all of the entities it regulates in order to support its so-called âUniversal Service Fund.â Allow Wikipedia to explain:
The Universal Service Fund (USF) is a system of telecommunications subsidies and fees managed by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) intended to promote universal access to telecommunications services in the United States. The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The fund reported a total of $8.33 billion in disbursements in 2013, divided among its four programs. The fund is supported by charging telecommunications companies a fee which is set quarterly. As of the fourth quarter of 2014, the rate is 16.1% of a telecom companyâs interstate end-user revenues.
So they wonât tax you, per se. Theyâll just charge you fees. Sound familiar? Â Thatâs exactly what happened with Obamacare. They might not call it a âtax,â but make no mistake, getting several billion dollars into Uncle Samâs pockets is one of the primary reasons for Net Neutrality, not fairness (however thatâs defined). New taxes will come if the FCCâs plan comes to fruition. Itâs not a question of if, but a question of when.
4. There is no reasonable argument for Net Neutrality.
Iâve seen memes. Iâve seen Facebook posts. Iâve read progressive articles. Iâve listened to progressive politicians. And when it comes to Net Neutrality, they all have the same argument: âWe need to #SaveTheInternet from the evil cable companies.â Itâs the same tactic that has been used to push through countless other liberty-killing bureaucracies, laws, taxes and regulations: a fear and hatred of corporations. But this is an argument based on emotion and personal bias rather than reason, history, principle or fact.
First of all, as has already been stated, there is no problem. Internet users in America have the ability to blog about whatever theyâd like, watch Netflix almost immediately â even on their phones, listen to religious broadcasts, participate in things that some might find offensive, share controversial ideas, criticize government and, yes, even rail against evil corporations. No one is censored. No one is threatened (legally). No one has their rights violated. There is no problem. The government shouldnât be going around solving problems that donât exist.
Second, as anyone who is vaguely familiar with economics would surmise, even if a cable company did begin to throttle particular users and allocate resources for reasons other than traffic demand, they would begin losing customers to competitors and the problem would be immediately fixed. Thatâs how the free market works. It can adjust to market forces and demand instantaneously. The government? Not so much.
Third, not only is there no problem, but the competition in the free marketplace has been an undeniable success. In 1994, there were dial-up modems that supplied internet at a laughable (by todayâs standards) 28.8 kbit/s. Now, gigabit connections are available in many communities nationwide. That means that our internet is 35,000 times faster now than it was just two decades ago. No government agency made that happen. The free market did.
Fourth, you may not like them, but corporations do not have the power that government does. Corporations canât put you in jail. Corporations canât coerce you. Corporations canât tax you. Corporations canât pass regulations that infringe upon your rights in any way. Government, however, can do all of these things. It has the monopoly on force. Â If you think dealing with Comcast or ATT is bad, you should be petrified of dealing with the Federal Government.
5. Net Neutrality will create yet another way for corporations to get in bed with politicians.
Everyone claims to hate crony-capitalism, but when we have a real chance to curb corporate influence on government, we rarely take it. In fact, often laws, taxes, regulations and spending projects are initiated, not because they are needed, but because a corporation with powerful lobbyists pays off, bribes, or blackmails politicians to get them passed because they know it will benefit them in some way. And giving the government the power to grant (or not grant) internet licenses will likely cause this problem to increase exponentially.
You might slyly ask why many large ISP companies would be in favor of such a law if it truly will regulate them, raise taxes, take away liberty, usher in unprecedented amounts of red tape and raise the price of virtually everything related to the internet. The answer: The elimination of competition. Why is Amazon in favor of the proposed internet tax that theyâll have to pay? Is it because Amazon is so noble that it is just chomping at the bit to build more roads and bridges? Hardly. Itâs because Amazon knows that its smaller competition couldnât possibly afford to compete with its deep pockets and they would eventually go out of business. Itâs not all cupcakes and rainbows when the government and corporations mix. I regularly hear people of all political stripes decry the cozy relationship that corporations have with politicians, and rightly so. So why would we want to encourage it?
6. Net Neutrality takes away liberty.
You may hate corporations. More specifically, you may hate cable companies and ISPs. Thatâs super. Good for you. But that doesnât mean that they donât (or shouldnât) have the right to run their businesses as they see fit. Please understand, if they violate the Constitutional rights of someone, then they should face consequences. No question about it. But apart from that, they, like everyone else, should be allowed to conduct business without the thumb of government on them.
The vast majority of the time, people enter into contracts with ISPs for their internet service. These contracts generally outline the pricing structure, define the terms of service and often lock a user in for a limited time. But notice, the ISPs donât come to anyoneâs house, hold a gun to their head and force them to sign anything. These people enter into binding contracts of their own free will. And, a person who enters into a binding contract is obligated to abide by the terms of that contract, plain and simple. If they donât have to abide by them, then whatâs the point of the contract? And if the two entities agree that an ISP has the right to allocate bandwidth, then the ISP has the right to allocate bandwidth. No need for government intervention.
There are some who would argue that as long as communication companies receive special privileges, tax breaks and, in some cases, subsidies from the government, they need to be regulated. I could not agree more. This is why we need to eliminate these special considerations for all companies, regardless of the type of business they conduct. Just as all people should have exactly the same rights, companies should be treated exactly the same by all governing bodies.
Furthermore, I personally want my ISP to be able to be able to allocate bandwidth as it sees fit. I would expect that a large telecommunications company would know the most efficient way to serve its customers, including me. Think about it, supporters of these regulations are demanding that it be illegal for me to enter into a private contract with a company that might prioritize bandwidth. Even if I want to. Again, this isnât liberty. It should never be illegal for two consenting entities to enter into contracts with one another. But it seems that it has become impossible for most people to separate the things they donât like from the things that they believe should be illegal.
7. Â Â Net Neutrality is nothing but a usurpation of power.
For some reason, there is a belief among millions of Americans that, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, the federal government generally has the best interest of the American people at heart. Iâm not sure how this belief system got started, but it is astounding how prevalent it is. But at best, the government is made up of imperfect people who want to get reelected. At worst (which is unfortunately the most common state) it is made of up of power-hungry bureaucrats hell-bent on gaining control of every aspect of our lives. Liberty (or even pragmatism) is rarely, if ever, the goal. Power is. And theyâll bribe, lie, get in bed with corporations, backstab and blackmail to get it. Whatever gets the job done.
Again, I ask you not to be naive. It kills the statists in Washington that the government doesnât control our internet communication. After all, one of the planks of Karl Marxâs Communist Manifesto is to centralize the means of communication in the hands of the state. Thatâs precisely what this is. No, Iâm not suggesting that supporters of this law sleep with copies of Communist Manifesto under their pillows at night, but this belief that the government is good and that the private sector is bad is instinctual to statists. Itâs something they all have in common, by definition. Perhaps every American politician until the end of time will be noble and honorable and Net Neutrality will never be used in a sinister way at all. But maybe it will. Why would we risk it?
8. Â Net Neutrality should be abhorrent to Liberals and Conservatives (and everyone else too!)
Up to this point, most of the vocal opposition to Net Neutrality has come from conservatives and libertarians. However, there was a time in the not-so-distant past when anyone who called themselves a âliberalâ would be automatically and unequivocally opposed to any proposal that might give government the power to regulate speech or any other form of communication. Those days are gone. Liberals, those who once supported liberty in all forms, especially in regards to speech, are now eager to grant virtually unlimited regulatory power to a small panel of unelected bureaucrats, all under the guise of keeping the internet âneutralâ â a term that seems more closely to resemble the Newspeak of George Orwellâs 1984 than something heard in The United States of America.
Tumblr, I implore you to reexamine your views on Net Neutrality. Or, at least admit that there might be a few reasonable arguments against it. You have thousands and thousands of users with political views all over the map. Please donât continue to alienate those with whom you disagree by publicly taking sides on such a controversial issue.
