THE BOSTIC REPORT-Procrastination is a killer. Couple that tendency with people’s inability to connect small, everyday choices with future outcomes and you get obesity, skin cancer, root canals, underfunded retirement, depression, divorce, and the end of net neutrality, of course.
I know it’s easy to dismiss the call to fight for net neutrality. With all the hyper-partisanship and “sky is falling” rhetoric, you’re probably exhausted with the apocalyptic battles of good versus evil, right versus wrong, red versus blue, Velcro versus shoe laces … Or, perhaps you’re a hyper-vigilante, true-blue Democrat ready to undertake yet another battle in the ideological wars.
Both sides, the one ready to dismiss net neutrality as overblown histrionics and the one mindlessly filing it away in the deck of their advocacy-issue cards, are making a huge mistake. Net Neutrality does matter. Egalitarian bandwidth access is good for sharing ideas and grows our economy. I’d argue that it’s actually the most pressing issue, more so even than global warming, women’s rights, raising the minimum wage, et al. only because it is the tool with which we are currently organizing all of those efforts.
What is net neutrality?
Though the concept is becoming a part of our cultural discussion, it’s not thoroughly understood. The fundamental idea is that every website, regardless of quality, style, or substance, should be delivered at the same speed. If you have lightening fast connections to espn.com, for example, then you could access npr.org just as fast; should you choose to do so.
This doesn’t relate to how a site is designed. If the site has a lot of content on it, your browser may take a bit longer to load it than if the site is fairly small on content. ESPN caters to the high-octane brains of people who crave a lot of noise, flashing lights, and multi-sensory bells ringing in order to feel satiated.
NPR, on the other hand, is a bit more straightforward in its simple, straightforward presentation. NPR fans just want to get their read on and they don’t need all the revving engines and hyperbole. That’s why one website takes a bit longer to load. This isn’t a lack of net neutrality. It’s a difference in the amount of content.
Where net neutrality comes into play is in the details of bandwidth. When you’re talking about Internet bandwidth, you’re basically talking about the size of the pipe that your information is flowing through to get to your computer. Smaller bandwidth will slow down loading speeds of your websites. Higher bandwidth makes browsing the Internet fast and easy.
Net neutrality is a concept that, for the customer’s purposes, deals with bandwidth. Right now, websites have equal access to bandwidth. That’s what makes net neutrality. No website has more bandwidth access than any other website. They all travel down the same sized pipe, if you will.
Even with net neutrality in effect, ESPN will take longer to load because it has more bells and whistles than NPR, but they both have access to the same amount of bandwidth.
Here’s where we’re flirting with disaster. If the Internet were regulated differently regarding bandwidth, then companies could bid on different loading speeds by paying for more bandwidth. In this scenario, ESPN could outbid NPR to use more bandwidth. The added bells and whistles would load just as fast as the placid presentation of stories on NPR – maybe even faster.
The changes that the FCC is proposing will permit Internet service providers with the option of charging higher fees to websites in order to provide them with more bandwidth. Why is this a problem?
Net Neutrality Promotes Democracy
Without egalitarian access, we lose the most effective tool we have against big money. All of those individual battles crumble under the weight of pay-based Internet speeds. This is crucial. In a capitalistic society like ours, the ability for corporate entities to leverage capital in order to buy up bandwidth would diminish the power regular people currently have to voice their concerns and perspectives.
What’s wrong with that, right? Well… everything. We live in an era of concentrated wealth. Wealth equals voice, be it through commercials, advertisements in media, buying media itself, or buying out opposing voices. The Internet is really the only platform normal people can express their views, find others sharing the same beliefs, and organize their efforts to counter what they believe is bad government or corporate policy.
Are all of these voices meaningful? That’s debatable. Are they all logical? Certainly not. Are they all important? Yes. They are important for a variety of reasons, including their ability to effect positive change, but most important is the fact that they are permitted to happen at all.
Look at the tea party. Just look at them. Perhaps you don’t agree with their hate-filled, quixotic rhetoric. I certainly don’t. But if they didn’t have that platform to establish a community online, the anger and resentment they feel would be stifled until it boils over into revolt.
Just having a place to vent their frustrations gives them the hope that they are able to effect change, thus limiting the potential for them to disrupt democracy through violence. And the Internet makes a handy tool for helping law enforcement identify unstable, dangerous groups or individuals through their ranting. Perhaps those efforts sometime go too far, as we have seen with the NSA, but I hope you see my point at least in philosophy.
Net Neutrality is Good for Our Economy
It’s been said many times. The Internet is the greatest innovation in human history. It is the printing press on proverbial steroids. The ability for anyone with access to locate information is an earth-shattering development. Have you ever looked to your phone or computer to find a recipe? Fix a broken thing? Comparison shop? Read an article? Play a game? Seek out a school? See how far your housing dollar goes in that paradise place that is somewhere in your optimal future?
Beyond consuming through the Internet, having equal access to bandwidth is good for economic innovation. It has lowered the cost barrier for entry into marketplaces, been the tool for creating new markets, and permitted those with limited access to capital a venue to test run their ideas.
It is a collaborative force, one where you may seek out experts on any issue. One where you may combine your ideas with far-flung resources or people that will help you develop your concepts more quickly and with a keener eye for applicability.
The growth of our economy depends upon this platform remaining equal in access to the public, like a public good.
And therein lies our problem. Our Internet, the one that the United States has, is not currently treated like a public good. We do not have a national infrastructure in bandwidth and we should because it is just as vital to our economy and community as a freeway, public transit system, and schools. It is, or should be, a public utility.
When we start acknowledging the fact that we need the Internet, much like we needed the public sewer systems, then we will begin to see the potential it holds for us in a future where there are no new lands to exploit, no more limitless resources of fresh, clean water, and growth as an economy is less a tangible presence and more of an ideas-based growth system.
Fight for net neutrality. If none of these ideas incite that fire to fight for net neutrality, then let me put it another way. Do you really want an Internet entirely owned and programmed by Disney? Cartoons are great, but I for one, would like some variety.
● SEE ALSO:
(Odysseus Bostick is a Los Angeles teacher and former candidate for the Los Angeles City Council. He writes The Bostick Report for CityWatch.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 37
Pub: May 6, 2014
