Net Neutrality == Innovation

So the "net neutrality thing" seems to be on the blogosphere's lips (keyboards?) these days - basically, net neutrality is what allows us have access to any site at the same speed for the same price. The argument for getting rid of net neutrality basically comes down to the fact that a certain small percentage of customers are sucking up the vast majority of bandwidth, thereby limiting the speeds of everybody on the ISP. Everybody pays the same, but that allows the super-users to consume more and impact others negatively. It is, admittedly, a problem - but getting rid of net neutrality is not the solution.

Net neutrality is something that we, as consumers, should unanimously desire in principle. Without net neutrality, YouTube, Facebook, and countless other sites would have never "made it." What allowed these sites to become large was the fact that consumers were able to try the service out and pass on the word to their friends, who could also try out the service without any additional fee. Without net neutrality, the picture would be much different: startup websites would need backing from a big player in the business before they were able to get such face-time with their target market. Honestly speaking, which big company would have had the foresight to support Facebook when it was just a startup website, and put it in a bundled package so that consumers (in a world without net neutrality) could look at it? The answer is "none." The internet allows startup companies to experiment with new ideas and see how a consumer market reacts. Limiting this ability limits progress, plain and simple. Facebook and YouTube alike would have sounded like bad ideas in a corporate board-room when they were first invented (which is why they were invented by individuals and not corporations). Net neutrality allows for unrestricted innovation with quick turnover of ideas, in short.

So lets not call this anything but it is: it is an attempt by big corporations to put the money deeper into their own pockets. There is a relatively simple solution to all this: faster internet connections (improved hardware). Broadband in the US is depressingly antiquated, but those same power-users who are consuming the vast majority of bandwidth would be the same people to adopt new connection technology to speed up their internet connections, even if it meant paying more. But corporations look at the two options available, and they see MORE profit to be made by side-stepping net neutrality, as it requires no real investment (whereas new hardware would).

Getting rid of net neutrality is NOT in the best interest of the consumer, but it WILL be rammed down our throats.