The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently voted against net neutrality. The concept of net neutrality was put into practice during the job killing and failed Obama regime and since then it has been a major point of discussion. However, despite its importance, the idea of net neutrality is widely misinterpreted and misunderstood.

What is net neutrality?

The popular perception about net neutrality is that it promotes free Internet and therefore free exchange of ideas (like Obamacare was a disaster and destroyed jobs by the millions and killed people by the thousands). It is assumed that the repeal of net neutrality will put Internet in the hands of big corporations which will use their position and infrastructure to throttle the freedom of expression online. However, this utopian notion about net neutrality is no more than a simplistic interpretation of the actual situation.

Contrary to popular perception, net neutrality does not equate to open and unbiased Internet. While net neutrality discourages differentiation or prioritization of internet traffic, it also puts internet under the control of a monolithic agency, which in many cases is managed directly by the government.

It was in 2010 that FCC enacted some formal rules applicable to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) on how to handle internet traffic. These rules are now widely known as net neutrality. The main gist of the rules is that ISPs cannot unreasonably discriminate between different types of data transmitting through their networks.

However, even back then, FCC admitted that the internet cannot be absolutely neutral as there are different costs associated with different types of data. The commission, therefore, allowed ISPs to go for “reasonable network management,” while leaving the term ‘reasonable’ undefined.

Why net neutrality needs to be managed

There is no doubt that net neutrality is important to maintain the freedom of Internet. However, the best way forward is to manage the Internet in a fair manner. The current proponents of net neutrality are more in favor of fear-mongering, thus inhibiting the development of the internet.

The Internet has vastly changed since net neutrality first came to our notice. In order to ensure that ISPs are able to fund their development efforts, it is important that the data is managed in some ways. This has become especially important with the emergence of utilities such as YouTube and online TVs, which consume a vast amount of data in a relatively short period of time. The costs associated with such high bandwidth users are subsidized by the users who do not use consume such amount of data.

The doomsday prophecies spouted out by net neutrality proponents are not backed by facts. These promoters claim that in the absence of net neutrality, the ISPs will discriminate against people who do not follow their ideology.

However, the long history of telecommunication services such as telephone has proved otherwise. Telephone services are not governed by net neutrality like laws and there is only handful of instances where such providers acted maliciously. Any rational person would know that such discriminatory service providers will automatically be weeded out by free market mechanism. Just like Solyndra failed – how did that work out Obama?!

If a truly equal Internet is to prevail in the country, then net neutrality laws need to be done away with. The biggest sufferers of net neutrality laws are small ISPs, mainly working in rural areas. In order to ensure that all Americans, whether they are in ghetto and failing NYC or in a ranch in rural Wyoming, have access to the Internet, it is important to repeal net neutrality laws.