This is how I explain net neutrality to friends.
Anyone who has ever tried to have a conversation about net neutrality already knows the lightning speed at which someone can change the subject. In order to explain an issue that many choose to ignore, mostly because they only want to understand how it affects them directly, I use an analogy that everyone can relate to. I describe the internet as a vast shopping mall that holds every imaginable store within it's imaginary walls.
Your internet service provider doesn't own the mall, nobody does... yet. Your ISP provides a service. It's right there in their name, but who owns that potentially lucrative shopping mall is the very fundamental thought behind the assault on net neutrality. Your ISP gives you a ride to the mall, they hold the door open for you and whisk you away instantly to whatever store you want to visit. They do so on an equal basis. That is, they give the multi million dollar Apple store the same consideration as my friend's movie blog that gets maybe five hits a year. That's why the internet is currently "neutral".
Since net neutrality is about who owns this vast mall, and in capitalist theory everything has to be owned by someone, the telecoms see the "stores" in the mall as doing business rent free, and in a way that's true. Sites still need an ISP, but there's no charge beyond broadband service. The ISPs see two simple solutions for this perceived affront to their bottom line.
The first, and I think least likely scenario, has every internet user paying a fee based on how many "stores" one visits in a given month. I see this as their last resort because budget conscious consumers will be forced to curtail usage to keep their monthly bill lower. That isn't want the telecoms want, they're looking for someone who will pay the maximum fee from now until the end of time.
That leads to what I believe the most likely solution of charging "rent" to all the stores within the confines of "their mall". All the big box stores like CNN, Microsoft, and Netflix will see an advantage to paying the rent necessary to locate their business at the main doors of the mall, but smaller stores like my buddy's movie site will have little choice than to forgo the expense.
Since the internet isn't really a brick & mortar building the telecoms can't actually evict anyone from the mall, but they have a way of penalizing those who choose not to pay. The ISPs can throttle back the traffic to their site to dial-up speed. In essence, they'll put the non-payers in the most remote location in the back of mall and refuse to provide instant delivery of customers, basically making shoppers walk most of the way on their own. No one wants to go back to the day of such snail like access, but that'll be the fate of websites that refuse, or cannot afford, to play ball with the telecom giants who want to own this virtual piece of real estate.
The telecoms can't lay claim to this valuable plaza that is the internet by fiat, they need a court decision giving them a sort of right to ownership, and that pending legal deed is where we stand today. Knowing how corporate friendly the Supreme Court has proven to be in recent history, the deck may already be stacked, but sleeping while this issue wends it's way through the system will find consumers awakening from a nightmare that will continue for the rest of our lives. Eventually, the giants of telecommunications will be able to decide where we get our news, our goods, and our entertainment based on how much a site is willing to pay and whether their site complements the overall goals of the ISP. Exit from the mall will be of course be through the Time Warner gift shop.
If I get through all that and someone still appears to not understand net neutrality, I tell them it'll be the end of free internet porn. That usually covers even the most unconcerned and politically unaware internet user, and lets me at least end with a laugh.
I've had pretty good success so far using this analogy, and have been thanked for clarifying an issue that few people understand, but I have one big rule: I don't mention the politics of the situation. Those who know me are already aware of my agenda and I risk losing them if they suspect for a second that I'm about to go off on another rant about how awful republicans are, of if I'm going to launch on a campaign speech for a potential candidate. Besides, I'm not sure I even know who the good guys and the bad guys will be on net neutrality. Since campaign finance sways so many pols, and we all know the telecoms have plenty to give, I believe the players in this battle are yet to be fully sorted out.
= new reply since forum marked as read
