Net Neutrality

I don’t often write about social issues, but I will today.  I really enjoy the internet.  Of course, I remember the day before we had computers, and email, and google.  In my lifetime, working across the internet has become as common in my life as driving a car.  I still remember my first internet subscription that my wife purchased for me in the Christmas of 1990.  It was a dial up account with a company called Prodigy. Oh how far we have come!

Today I watched this video from the New York Times.
http://nyti.ms/1lVegBN

I believe that a level playing field for internet access is of vital importance.  I want the internet to remain a place where we can post ideas, access blogs and websites, and become informed about our world.  To think that it might become segmented into “fast lanes” and “slow lanes” by nature means that we will give an advantage to certain content.

In the video, I loved the analogy of a toaster.  What if the power grid was segmented?   You took your toaster home only to discover that your power company had a special agreement with the “other” toaster maker.  Your toaster worked more slowly – or not at all.  We’d all be upset by this.  Because we have become accustomed to a power grid that always produces consistent power.  Our economy is built on this premise.

“Net neutrality” is the buzz word.  Some are calling it a human right.  That language probably goes too far for me, but I still partner with the notion that a level field for the internet is a good thing.

Imagine living in a country like China or Iran where the internet is heavily censored.  The country deems that certain ideas cannot be shared.  Companies that begin to buy the rights for faster and more consistent connections come close to the idea of censorship because they have an unfair advantage to buy a bigger voice or squash smaller voices.

I’m a fan of allowing competing ideas to play out in the marketplace.  A fair internet environment helps all of us.