Internet Neutrality is Internet Neutered

Yes, we are approaching , and in some cases exceeding, Internet Broadband capacity. Yes, Net Neutrality is a bad idea. (Go to your room FCC). The inherent allocation of resources to meet demand requires that SOMEONE pay for bandwidth usage. In 2002 I wrote that then unwanted infrastructure would be in demand sooner, rather than later, and that wise Venture Capital gurus would be smart to buy capacity on the cheap, because demand was growing and would accelerate.

Well, here we are.

Risk leads to reward; those who invest in infrastructure can reasonably be expected a profit from doing so, but no guarantee. It appears that socialistic influences want to interfere with the tenants of a free, competitive marketplace. Better that we should promote the idea of metered usage, so that users(consumers, business, institutions) pay for the bandwidth they use. Use less, pay less, use more, pay more.

That way, if the FCC and legislators do their jobs, a truly free, consumer-driven marketplace for Content will arise. The infrastructure that supports the Content delivery must be allowed to charge traffic-based rates, like toll roads and bridge tolls, like your power company; you pay for what you use. However, for Content users not to be unfairly gouged, the infrastructure MUST be open to competitive access at reasonable, not usurious rates. If this means that Content providers must be separate from the infrastructure marketplace, that is all to the better.

This also means that tiers of Content will be provided, like free over-the-air TV was in the past. This also means that in some cases, again depending on the demands of a competitive marketplace, we could see a situation wherein the Content providers, wanting access to consumers, will pay the infrastructure owners for access to the marketplace. That bodes well for choice, payment based on Content desirability and much more.

It's easy to see a marketplace where a consumer wants to watch the new Tom Cruise MI 6 and is willing to pay for it, a New Release over the Internet. But, the capacity to deliver streaming video to 10,40, 200 million households all at one time must be available.

So, let's not be fooled by the Net Neutrality red herring. In other countries (US is 13th-16th) broadband is much more prevalent, and cheaper than US. This is again the FCC's fault for allowing monopolistic policy to be dictated by politics and lobbyists.

Infrastructure owners are entitled to invest their money, thereby risking their capital, in the hope of a reasonable return. The marketplace will reward them as appropriate, but not if we continue to allow a "let them have their cake and eat it too" attitude that minimizes or eliminates risk through allowing monopoly practices.

Does anyone really think that Verizon and Comcast, Charter and AT&T and all the others would invest Billions without the prospect of a profit? That they consider reducing their risk by encouraging the continuance of monopolistic practices just good business?

Competitive access for Content providers to the infrastructure is what is required and should be encouraged, even demanded by those who claim to want a free marketplace, with choices among a thousand varieties, all available on demand, anytime, anyplace.