I came across a post today by Robin Harris on the new Net Neutrality rules proposed by the FCC.  The title of which insinuated that Net Neutrality rules will create a faster Internet.  But the actual data suggests something entirely different.

The argument is made in the article that content providers can purchase what is generally described as a “fast lane” for their services.  And that those that have not purchased this “fast lane” are left with a slower Internet.  It is then concluded that this forces the left out content providers into purchasing the upgraded service packages.  Even if this was the case, the assumption is made that the new rules proposed by the FCC would mandate that ISP’s were common carrier’s and that access speed would need to be equal on all sides.

1. This line of thought is completely erroneous.  Access speed is something entirely different than that of network management and packet prioritization.
2. ISP’s will still be able to offer various levels of bandwidth based on the needs of the content provider.  So speeds will never be equivalent.
   
3. The example used is laughable.  Why in the world would Google be a proponent of the FCC rules if they reduced their advantage over market players?  If the current status quo supposedly gave Google the opportunity to make access to YouTube faster than to Hulu, why would they not be in favor of that?  Google is in the business of making money.  They are not in the business of providing free services.
4. Content distribution is not neutral, it never has been.
   

The next line of thought is that Net Neutrality will force an ISP to invest in infrastructure improvements.  But current research by ITIF and former FCC Chairman Furchtgott-Roth indicates that the new rules could decrease investment significantly.

• A reduction in investment of just 2 percent by the broadband services industry would eliminate between 24,000 and 31,000 jobs, according to ITIF and Furchtgott-Roth.
  
• A reduction by 5 percent would eliminate between 47,000 and 78,000 jobs; and
  
• A 10 percent decline could be expected to eliminate more than 100,000 jobs according to both sets of research.

Harris goes on to talk about game theory.  Game theory is a study of the success of one item based on the choices of various outside forces.  It can be used to examine anything from business to video games.  Your success on a business project could be determined on whether an employee chooses to work on a critical component or chooses to go see a movie the night before the assignment is due.  Successfully surviving a raid in World of Warcraft could be determined by the success or failure of a teammate performing an assigned action.  Game theory can be seen everywhere.

Harris assumes that game theory doesn’t play out for the U.S. because Net Neutrality is not law.  But that it does in Japan, where Net Neutrality is law.  The assumption is made that the success of the consumer is dictated only by the one element within the equation.  But this is a misunderstanding of game theory.  Success or failure of the consumer is dictated by many outside players, not simply law.  So even if Japan has Net Neutrality regulation, there are still other factors determining success or failure in the areas of competitive price and best speeds at that price.

This is not to even mention the fact that advertised speeds are completely different than actual speeds.  U.S. companies are also more honest in their actual speeds.  The differences in average speed between the U.S. and Japan is actually not that far off.

In closing Harris mentions that,

Free markets work best when the incentives are aligned to create lasting wealth for us all.

This simply isn’t the case.  The reality of it is that free markets don’t produce 100% winners.  Someone has to lose.  Not everyone gets a gold star or a participation trophy.  Government should not be picking winners and losers with regulations that put the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of workers in the ISP workforce at risk.

The bottom line is this, Net Neutrality regulation will not make your Internet connection faster, which is what Harris’ post implies.  Internet speeds will increase in the future, but it certainly won’t be because of Net Neutrality.  Internet speed is determined by a combination of factors based primarily on bandwidth and latency.  This will be improved by investment in infrastructure, which it has been mentioned is possibly in trouble due to the NPRM.

Net Neutrality is a conversation regarding how one individuals data packets are transferred in comparison to how other’s data packets are transferred,  and the goal for that process to be equivalent.  Access speed is something that will always be different from consumer to consumer, business to business, and content provider to content provider, not ubiquitous rules from the FCC.