Post 56 -- Milo misunderstands net neutrality.

It shouldn't come as a shock to most that the fabulous Milo Yianopolous isn't perfect. While close, there are some strange quirks about the man that were uncovered in his conversation with Joe Rogan during The Powerful Joe Rogan Experience #702. A small example is the love for a monarch and people being "born and bred to rule".

Another stunning example of Milo's short comings--which contradicts his pro-consumer #GamerGate stance and conservative business values--is his disdain for net neutrality. At the basis of this is his misunderstanding of what net neutrality is attempting to do. I will provide a few examples though this to clarify for those who do not understand what the impact of net neutrality has on individuals and businesses.

Here is where it starts in JRE. 

"It's about the government regulating the internet," says Milo in his argument that net neutrality is inherently anti-free speech. He goes on to state, "it is about the government trying to intrude into the private relationship between a company and it's customer. Net neutrality is about the government trying to intrude into that relationship and dictating what kind of business arrangement you can come to with [your internet provider]."

In summary of Milo's points, net neutrality is a direct intrusion by way of government over reach into private contracts between two parties.

Milo continues to add some nonsense about the government attempting to interfere with ISPs having tiered services for their customers, a claim that is entirely bogus on its face.

Here is where Milo, and other anti-net neutrality advocates, need a small education on how business views net neutrality. This is not merely ramblings of someone who doesn't know better; I have information from a lead developer of one of the largest cloud companies in the world who has spoken with me about how his company would approach a world of net neutrality and the world without it.

Let's start with an example. Three men walk into McDonald's. One works for Radio Shack, one works for the city, and one is unemployed. They all wish to purchase a Big Mac. The man from Radio Shack pays $1.50. The man from the city pays $1.00. The unemployed man pays $2.00. Each of these men received the same service, had the same wait time, and received identical burgers in presentation and calories. Why did they have to pay different amounts? Well, that's because Radio Shack and the city have contracts with McDonald's which states what they get to pay for their Big Macs. The unemployed fellow has no such contact, so it forced to pay a higher rate for the same item.

Let's use those same three men again. This time, they are all purchasing a Big Mac and they all pay $1.50 for it. The man from Radio Shack gets the standard Big Mac. The man from the city gets a Big Mac with additional cheese and two additional burger patties. The unemployed man does not get cheese and only gets one burger patty. Again, because of the contracts between each company, the same named item is distributed at different levels for the same price.

But wait, there's more! This isn't just about the Big Mac contracts. This is also about the people providing the produce, condiments, buns, and beef. Each contract dictates how each individual contract receives a different quality product for each burger component. This is not an act of reducto ad absurdum; rather, this is illustrating the point with an example which most can imagine themselves being in.

To extrapolate this out into your personal contract with your ISP, consider the following: not only do you negotiate (or more likely just agree to what is being offered) on your internet speed (e.g., 15 Mbps upload/ 1 Mbps download), but your agreement would also contain hundreds of pages of what bandwidth is available between you and the internet sites which you might visit. So, even though you would be purchasing a, let's say, basic package (15/1), you would not get a smooth 15 Mbps download maximum from each site. Instead, you would see a list such as:

• YouTube: 1.6 Mbps down, 0.5 Mbps up
• Twitter: 0.5 Mbps down, 0.2 Mbps up
• Reddit: 5 Mbps down,  0.01 Mbps up
• Amazon: 1 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up
• ... and so fourth.

Each company's rate would be determined through what each company pays for its data to be shared through the ISP and to each customer based on rates determined outside of the maximum upload rates. Expanding this out a bit more, this means that, for example, one particular ISP is vehemently anti-pornography--be it evangelicals or feminists--they could say those particular packets of information from any web hosting service which deals with hosting pornography are different from non-pornography packets and charge a rate so absurd that the cost to the consumer and host would be prohibitive. A Christian ISP could do the same to atheist content hosts. We have already established that search engines such as Google cannot write algorithms which hide or undervalue results from its competitors. Why should we allow ISPs to determine what each packet of information is worth simply based on the company or hosting service from whence they came?

One more example, as this ties into another quote from Milo: "... just like you can get a better car if you pay more." Again, this is Milo making the dumb statement that ISPs wouldn't be allowed to sell tiered packages (i.e., basic [15/1], silver [25/5], gold [50/10], platinum [100/25]). What this statement implies is that if you pay more money, you will get better access. The thing is, with cars, you don't get special treatment on roadways. This is because roads are publicly owned. Railways, telephone lines, and utilities are considered common carriers, entities so central and valuable to our lives that to charge different rates for different parties on arbitrary grounds is deemed immoral.

Back to the car thing, though: whether you buy a Honda Accord or an Audi A4 you do not get special rules based on the maker of your car. Owning a Lexus doesn't mean the freeway speed is 75 MPH while Ford owners are limited to 60 MPH. Is this clear yet?

* Here's an example of what the internet world will look like without net neutrality. Let's say there is a business in Vancouver, Washington, Go To Gutter Guys, a gutter installation and cleaning company. It's a small business which has purchased web hosting from another small business in the Pacific Northwest. Both Go To Gutter Guys and the hosting service use Comcast Xfinity as their ISP. Now, say there is someone in Florida who is trying to help his elderly grandparents in Vancouver find someone to clear their gutters. The person in Florida attempts to connect to gotogutterguys.com to inquire about rates. Our fictional Florida Man does not have Comcast. His ISP instead doesn't have a deal or an arrangement with Comcast or the web hosting service. The Florida Man's ISP then aggressively throttles or even blocks access to the gotoguttersguys.com. Why? Because without net neutrality, there is no consumer protections in place which will prevent any ISP which is not providing the internet service to a party from throttling or blocking access to that party's site. This harms small businesses, medium businesses, civic governments, and consumers far more than federal infrastructure or major companies. Again, all of this is done despite what tiered level of service a party my have purchased.

With net neutrality, you buy service based on your needs. You get a certain maximum download and upload speed. These speeds are slightly mediated by what the content hosting services are paying for. All packets are equal. A world without net neutrality would mean that each contract would require customers to negotiate for not only what level of service they want, but for what access to each site, as effected by what each site has negotiated for it's access to consumers. It is utterly, wholly ridiculous to argue that net neutrality is inherently anti-free speech when its expressed purpose is to prevent companies and governments from determining the value of each packet based on its content and source.

Sorry glorious Milo, but you're just wrong on net neutrality.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi

* This paragraph was added after the original publication to help further clarify and illustrate the harm caused by a lack of consumer protection.