[vinylkey]

Do know of any resources that explain Net Neutrality in a non-partisan, clear, concise manner?

My dad is under the impression that Net Neutrality is bad because "the government has no business with the Internet." I'd like to provide him with some good information to try to sway his mind, but most simple explanations I can find are comedic in nature (John Oliver, The Oatmeal webcomic), or are from a "liberal source." Any help on swaying someone for this issue would be greatly appreciated.

[thomastjeffery]

You and I seem have the same general problem: family members influenced by "right-wing" media that have been convinced to hate anything to do with "liberals", without actually defining who or what a "liberal" is.

On top of that, both of my parents have been conditioned to reject anything remotely vulgar, so friendly comedy like John Oliver simply promotes their biases rather than breaking the ice.

It's a frustrating problem, and I have no idea how to approach it.

[orthecreedence]

Net Neutrality generally means ISPs must treat all packets they deliver the same.

In other words, a cat photo is treated just as important as a military document being transferred to a general.

That's it.

There's Net Neutrality regulation, which varies in complexity, but Net Neutrality itself is a fairly simple concept.

[welder]

Here's a good explanation but it probably doesn't speak to your dad. It's hard to find a non-partisan resource because literally EVERYONE is in favor of an open, free, "neutral" internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVLiw7ZvzDI&t=12m20s

[thomastjeffery]

I think the simplest way to explain the need for net neutrality is to point out these two things:

1. ISPs are currently an oligopoly that would be the only beneficiaries to a non-neutral internet. Customers can't choose between ISPs, so we need to make sure that the ISPs don't hurt their customers.

2. The internet is an economy, and a non-neutral internet would directly prevent competition.

[fvdessen]

Net Neutrality is like preventing the US Post office from providing express delivery as the extra speed comes at the expense of regular delivery and there is a risk that only big companies would be able to pay for the service.

[thomastjeffery]

Net Neutrality is like preventing the Post Office from limiting the amount of packages a business can deliver, or limiting the priority of that business's deliveries unless that business pays the Post Office a premium.

The problem with that behavior is that there are some very large, wealthy businesses like Amazon who need to deliver a high volume of packages on time, so those businesses would be willing to pay a very high premium.

Since the Post Office would be making such deals with everyone, so that they don't look like they are being unfair, the big deals they make with Amazon would set the bar for every business who wants their packages delivered by the Post Office.

That bar would naturally be too high for small businesses and nonprofits, who would quickly go out of business, or be unable to start in the first place.

[fvdessen]

There is absolutely no difference between what you and I said. The Post Office does limit the priority of a business delivery unless that business pays a premium (express delivery).

The reason this doesn't goes terribly is that there is business competition between the Post Office and FedEx, DHL, etc.

The problem with the internet is not the lack of neutrality, it's the lack of competition between ISP.

And you assume that small businesses will be kept out. I see the exact opposite happening in Europe where net neutrality is more lax. Small startups are making agreements with ISPs to provide services that need a level of QoS that wouldn't be possible with net neutrality in place.

[thomastjeffery]

Don't forget that this is a metaphor.

You are right that the problem is a lack of competition.

The biggest problem with internet companies right now is that there are services like Facebook that people use so prolifically that they are very difficult to compete with. If ISPs began prioritizing Facebook, as they have tried to do before, it will be even more difficult to compete.

The other problem is that ISPs aren't the only ones fighting competition between internet services. There is a long history with media corporations using copyright to fight competition. Most innovative music streaming services have been considered illegal (turntable.fm, Grooveshark, What.CD), unless their business can pay rightsholders (Spotify, ). and adding features to existing services like Netflix involves breaking DRM, which is also illegal.

All of these issues are related in some way, especially since many of the biggest media corporations are the same businesses as the biggest ISPs. These corporations have accrued so much capital that no one can compete with them or their lobbying.

[kelnos]

I think ultimately all attempts at analogy end up failing, so I'd try to avoid them when talking to your dad.

First off, the government already has "business with the internet". Cable, DSL, wireless, etc. companies are all already regulated in general, and always have been. We don't just allow anyone to come along and dig up our streets or put up utility poles so they can run cable or fiber. We also don't allow any random company to start broadcasting on whatever radio frequency band they want. These are all scarce public resources, and restricting access to them makes sense. So the number of companies that can become ISPs in any given area is limited (by the government), and IMO that's actually the right thing to do.

If you can get your dad to agree with that, or at least understand where that sort of thinking comes from, then move on to:

The best way to ensure that companies in a particular industry don't engage in anti-consumer behavior is to ensure that there's a good competitive landscape. If you can do that, there will eventually be a natural equilibrium between a company's profit motives and the quality of service it provides to customers, because customers will be able to vote with their wallets and only patronize companies that give them what they want, for a price they think is fair.

Hopefully that's not controversial. In fact, it's very "free market" and "no gov't interference", so I think it's something your dad would agree with. But:

If we don't and can't have a competitive landscape, the next best thing is to regulate what these monopolies can do. Net neutrality regulation ensures that ISPs won't try to charge you more if you want to stream high quality video rather than just crappy video, for example. It keeps them from "bundling" websites in differently-priced plans to cause you to have to pay more to see more of the internet. And on the other side of the equation, it keeps ISPs from charging certain content providers a premium to send their bits over the ISP's network.

You might also want to add, but isn't strictly necessary:

These things may sound theoretical, but they're not. ISPs have constantly been in a tug of war with the FCC to determine what they're allowed to do. The FCC, for its part, had tacitly agreed not to regulate them under Title II as long as they maintained the neutrality of the internet. In 2014-15, Verizon decided they didn't want to play ball anymore, and thought they had the political clout to avoid Title II classification, so they sued the FCC, claiming the FCC didn't have the right to enforce net neutrality under Title I rules. The court ruled that Verizon was correct, but Verizon overplayed its hand: the FCC ended up classifying them under Title II anyway. So we've always had some form of net neutrality, even though up until 2015 it was more of a "gentlemen's agreement" between the FCC and the ISPs than actual regulation. Once the ISPs got too big for their britches, the FCC smacked them down, and hard.

[peterwwillis]

(my weak attempt follows)

The FCC's mission is (among other things) to "make available [..] communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges". They are also supposed to promote competition, neutrality, affordability, innovation, etc.

The only way to do that is with regulation. The only thing the FCC does is regulate. It regulates to stop monopolies and unfair business practices, which harm consumers and businesses.

In theory, we shouldn't need so much regulation of the internet. But the internet is an interwoven, complicated beast, and one single company can have a huge impact on lots of businesses and consumers - even ones that have nothing to do with them directly.

Net Neutrality is just a term to refer to a "common carrier" - a person or thing that carries goods or services for other people, and is responsible for them along the way.

Think of UPS, carrying your Christmas packages from you to your loved ones. Imagine if UPS was allowed to unpack your Christmas present and replace it with a cheap, shoddy replacement - and then demand more money to deliver the real thing!!! On top of this, UPS is the only carrier that will deliver from your area. This has already happened multiple times on the internet, and the FCC has been the only thing that has stopped it.

If internet companies aren't required to treat everyone fairly, they can make life miserable for businesses, and for you. You could end up with different access than other people, depending on who you pay, or how much you pay, or where you live. You could be forced to make choices you don't want to make, simply because someone has unfair power over your internet.

Companies have no incentive to protect your right to an affordable, competitive, neutral, innovative, free internet. And that's why we need the government to meddle in it. Because in this case, nobody else is going to.

But right now, the FCC Chairman doesn't care about ensuring your access to a fair, neutral internet - he cares more about the interests of a few rich companies, who stand to make a lot of money by walling off parts of the internet from you, and from competing businesses, so they can then turn around and charge you double for what you were already paying for.

Does this sound fair to you? No? Then you're a supporter of Net Neutrality. Now, how the government enforces Net Neutrality will be debated, and there isn't one set way to do it. But they will have to use regulation to enforce it, one way or another. And what they're doing now is the opposite of that.

So if you want your internet to be fair, tell your representatives that. Tell them you support Net Neutrality, and that you demand equal and fair access to the internet for everyone. Let them figure out the details. But know that what you're supporting is for you, as much as everyone else.