Neutrality Isn't

Net Neutrality is in the news again. (You can read my explanation on the issue here, along with my explanation of why I'm bitter and cynical about it.) It got a boost in publicity recently because President Obama came out in favour of it. Predictably, other politicians then quickly decided they were against it. Conservative icon Ted Cruz tweeted that it was just like Obamacare:

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014

That lead to a lot of criticism from techies and/or liberals, well summarised in this comic from The Oatmeal. It ridicules Cruz's tweet, and encourages politicians to see this as a bipartisan issue that is in everyone's interest. And it notes that Cruz received a lot of campaign funds from communication companies that would benefit from the end of Net Neutrality.

Well I have a different perspective and it's something quite unexpected, so I'll put it in its own paragraph for emphasis:

Ted Cruz has a point.

To clarify, I should point out that I do fully believe the following:

• Net Neutrality is a good thing.
• Ted Cruz doesn't know what Net Neutrality is.
• Cruz is saying this primarily to stay in the good graces of his donors.
• Cruz compares everything he doesn't like to Obamacare ("I asked for medium-rare! This steakhouse is just like Obamacare! ")

So this is one of those cases of a clock that doesn't work being right twice a day. And can we please come up with a more modern version of that saying? 

The fact is that Net Neutrality is a lot like Obamacare. In both cases we're talking about regulating something such that there is a minimum amount of service that everyone can depend on, with the cost being that no one can get better service even if they can pay extra. In both cases, the alternative is a less-regulated system in which your level of service depends on your ability to pay, allowing people to buy better service with more money, but allowing the possibility that some will be priced out of a reasonable level of service.

Of course, Cruz is being disingenuous when he characterises Net Neutrality as though it were the government running the Internet. But that too is a similarity to Obamacare: the proposed solution is a system of regulation rather than total government control (in contrast to say, Canada's health care system.) But, in both cases, opponents are falsely portraying it as the government running everything.

As for The Oatmeal, it's wrong: this is a partisan issue. Some people may agree with its opinion that regulating internet speeds is a good idea (I do) but many others will not, thinking it's better if people/companies can pay for better service. That's what a partisan issue is: one in which the parties disagree. Just because you're really sure that you're right doesn't make your cause bipartisan.