1 files changed, 138 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/src/Net_Neutrality.adoc b/src/Net_Neutrality.adoc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cafbfa5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/Net_Neutrality.adoc
@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+Net Neutrality
+==============
+:author: Aaron Ball
+:email: nullspoon@iohq.net
+
+My house is wired for two internet service providers: *Comcast* and
+**CenturyLink**.
+
+*Comcast* provides what is called cable internet. They have a network created
+originally with the intent to deliver paid but limited commercial television.
+That clearly didn't work out as intended though becuase cable television now
+has more commercials than free ad-supported air-wave television; but I digress.
+
+*CenturyLink* on the other hand, is a DSL provider. DSL uses the old phone
+network that they didn't build, they just use it. While the maximum speeds of
+DSL internet are slower than the maximum speeds of cable internet, they are
+usually cheaper, likely due to the smaller amount of infrastructure overhead.
+They also have a reputation for being unreliable, though that hasn't really
+been my experience.
+
+Herein lies the problem. My house is wired for *only* two internet service
+providers. In December of 2013, the FCC released
+http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db1224/DOC-324884A1.pdf[a
+report] in which was detailed the number of landline internet providers
+available per household. The statistics...
+
+* 33% have access to 3+ providers
+* 37% have access to 2 providers
+* 28% have access to 1 provider
+* 2% have access to 0 providers
+
+The survey shows that 67% of households have access to 2 or fewer internet
+service providers. Further, that number will likely not change much in the
+future because the only way to get a new provider into the mix is for that
+provider to use the phone network (DSL), or to have enough funding as a startup
+to build their own network, which is incredibly costly. In other words, the
+cost of entry is so high in this market, that it is a barrier to entry. That
+makes the few landline internet service providers
+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly[monopolies], doesn't it?
+
+
+[[utilities]]
+== Utilities
+
+The idea has been discussed of declaring internet a utility in the United
+States. That is an interesting thought, full of complications.  What are some
+utilities we can compare to get a better idea of what that would look like?
+
+* **Water**: Each house has its own water pipes put in when it's built.
+Laying a second set of pipes for a different water provider would be far too
+costly (probably impossible). The service of in-house water access is
+effectively a monopoly on a city-by-city basis, and thus is eligable for
+government regulation since its existence as a monopoly cannot be avoided.
+
+* **Electricity**: Again, when a house is built, its lines are connected
+to "the grid". That grid is owned usually by a very large company (like Xcel)
+who has the money to build out those lines, or by the city who also has the
+money to build out those lines. Either way, electricity can only be acquired
+from one provider for the given dwelling. Like water, the product of
+electricity is an unavoidable monopoly worthy of government regulation.
+
+* **Gas**: I'll just be quick on this one. Gas, pipes, one provider per
+house = unavoidable monopoly.
+
+The commonalities of the three afforementioned utilities are
+
+* Cost to market entry is prohibitively high by the nature of the
+  product
+
+* Government intervention is required to keep sole providers from
+  abusing their powers as sole providers
+
+However, if internet is to be a utility, it should [in theory] have similar
+characteristics to a utility, notably, limitations.
+
+Most folks want their unlimited data (I'm one of them). However, when you pay
+for your electricity bill, you may notice that they charge you (in the US) per
+kilowatt hour. With water, they charge for gallons used.  With internet, it
+would presumably be charged on a per gigabyte basis.  Regulation then would not
+be on how much you get access to, but how much you pay for increments of said
+access. Many companies have implemented a small, medium, large product set
+wherein you pay the company multiple hundreds of percents higher than the
+product is actually worth for a limited product which if you exceed, are
+charged exorbitent fees almost as if you breached a contract. This isn't how
+gas, electricity, or water work. An increment could not be "small, medium, or
+large", but "You used 15.9 gigabytes this month".
+
+
+[[government-regulationownership-stops-innovation]]
+== Government Regulation/Ownership Stops Innovation
+
+The subject of this section makes plain what it is about. If you disagree or
+dislike this, please read anyways as the entire topic of net neutrality should
+not be discussed withtout bringing this in (it's not a real discussion anyways
+if you dismiss the other's viewpoints without first hearing them out).
+
+The United States capitalist-oriented economy and law have without a doubt
+gotten the nation where it is today (for better or for worse).  Yes, we have
+some companies (I won't name any, but I'm sure you can think of some) who have
+abused their wealth to exploit people. On the flip side, the United states also
+has the most robust, thriving, and enduring economies in the world. Nearly
+every other nation, if not _every_ other nation bases their currency on ours
+(I'm an American by the way).
+
+It's an easy-to-prove fact that most (always avoid absolutes) game-changing
+innovations have come out of the United States private sector. Some more
+notable ones are Walmart's best-in-world inventory tracking, Amazon's user
+preference algorithms, Google's search algorithms [originated here], computers
+in general (though now they are often manufactured in other countries), Pixar's
+renderman, the internet (though that was originally comissoned by the
+government supposedly), the cell networks. The list could go on.
+
+Now think of the last time you went into a government establishment, be it a
+court house, the DMV, or somewhere else. Did you notice that they're still
+running Windows XP with 4x3 monitors and very old desktops? The best innovation
+we've seen near the DMV as of late is the ability to renew one's driver's
+license on their website. However, as we've seen with the latest healthcare.gov
+screwups (let's face it, that's what it was), the government isn't good at
+doing much that the private sector excells at.
+
+
+[[a-balance]]
+== A Balance
+
+However, if the private sector were really as good at everything as it may seem
+I just implied, why do we even have a government? I won't deny that a
+government is needed to intervene. We do need a governing body that is above
+all others so it can govern. That's why we have anti-monopoly laws that are
+actually enforcable (remember all the attempted purchases of T-Mobile as of
+late?) amongst other laws that protect citizens, and in this case, consumers of
+the internet.
+
+More thoughts more thoughts more thoughts...
+
+Category:Politics
+
+
+// vim: set syntax=asciidoc: