Unless you like spam and hate your privacy you should want to dump net neutrality (letter)
On Friday, May 11, State Sen. Donovan wrote that the net neutrality rule should be kept in place (“Localizing net neutrality rules to Colorado”).
The net neutrality rule was imposed by the Federal Communications Commission in 2015 for the purpose of preventing internet service providers from charging different rates for carrying different types of traffic. Do you like spam (emails that you didn’t request)? Then you should like net neutrality because that is exactly what net neutrality does: It will flood you with junk emails.
The supporters of net neutrality are Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc. These companies send out millions of bots (software programs that search the internet). The bots are used to used to update search engines and to gather information on you and me.
The search engines with the best customer information can sell advertising space at a premium, earning Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc., lots of money. So if you like net neutrality, then you don’t like your personal privacy.
If the internet service providers charged a small fee on internet traffic, it would be an enormous charge to Microsoft and friends, since 50 percent to 60 percent of internet traffic is spam, including bots (see Statista, Skeptics and SecureList). Sen. Donovan thinks such a fee would “put our democracy and economy at risk.” I think the risk is worth it to retain my privacy and have a spam-free inbox.
An additional benefit to an internet fee would be to stop all of the malicious spam that contains viruses, malware, ransom ware, phishing, etc. But if you like net neutrality, then you must like internet fraud.
How much does Microsoft like net neutrality? Well enough that during the 2016 election cycle, they contributed $7.1 million to democrats and spent $8.7 million on lobbying (see opensecrets.org). So it appears to me that Sen. Donovan is simply pumping out the party line and doesn’t really care about the true impact of the net neutrality rule.
Sen. Donovan also attempts to link net neutrality with rural health care and schools. Sorry, Senator, you are the victim of some poor advice. The Telecommunication Bill of 1996 established a funding mechanism called the Universal Service Fund, to provide low-cost broadband and telephone service for tele-medicine, libraries and schools. Subsidies range from 90 percent to 20 percent. Also, the U.S. Department of Agriculture runs a program to give grants to rural telecommunications companies to improve and expand their infrastructure.
I certainly agree with the Senator’s closing remarks that “Government should work for the people, not special interests.” Regrettably, the Senator seems to bend over backwards to please her special interests.