(http://considerthis.ctpodcasting.com/wp-content/uploads/liberal-logic-101-1560-500x416-150x125.jpg)Didn't the recent rules by the FCC guarantee net neutrality for all, forcing Internet Service Providers to treat all traffic equally? No, not really. And the classic example that people use to explain why net neutrality was necessary -- the Comcast/Netflix dustup last year -- had nothing at all to do with the issue. An explanation in this episode of the podcast.

It's just another way the government has duped you to get more control over something.

Mentioned links:

An Open Letter Explaining Why I Support The FCC Net Neutrality Rules (http://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2015/02/25/an-open-letter-explaining-why-i-support-the-fcc-net-neutrality-rules/)

Twitter conversation between Tony Bradley and me (https://twitter.com/dougpayton/status/570959316615876608)

Comcast vs. Netflix: Is this really about Net neutrality? (http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/)

Obamanet’s Regulatory Farrago (http://www.wsj.com/articles/gordon-crovits-obamanets-regulatory-farrago-1426457509)

Show transcript

Net Neutrality. It’s been discussed for some time, and for a very long time the FCC opposed writing such rules. And yet, just a few weeks ago, they wrote these rules up, didn’t release them to the public, yet asked for comments from that public, and then passed those rules. You’d think Nancy Pelosi was on that committee. “We have to pass net neutrality to see what’s in it.”

I read an article on the Forbes website by Tony Bradley (and there’s a link in the show notes to it) that said, “The fact that the ISPs and GOP are fighting this implies that it is most likely good for America.” I tweeted Bradley (and that link to the conversation is also in the show notes) and he did indeed clarify that, yes, he would have like to see the rules, but if the ISPs and GOP is against it, he’s for it. So what this brought out is the blind partisanship on the Left, as well as a blow to more government transparency. We won’t get transparency unless and until we require it from both sides, especially the side we agree with.

Others have brought up the whole Comcast vs Netflix dustup that happened last year. “That’s why we need net neutrality; so ISPs can’t force us to pay more for our websites!” No, in reality, the Comcast/Netflix thing had nothing at all to do with net neutrality; nothing whatsoever. Maggie Readon, writing at the CNet tech website, explains it all. For a computer geek like me, it’s a fascinating read about how the Internet really works. For those who aren’t quite that geeky, Maggie makes the complex a little easier to understand, but it takes some explaining. Please check the link in the ever-expanding show notes to get to it, and please try to resist the urge to comment “Too long, didn’t read”. Near the end of the article, Maggie tells us, ultimately, what the issue was.
Netflix is attaching a fire hose to the Comcast network, which is only equipped to handle connections the size of garden hoses. The gushing fire hose of content can't possibly be funneled into the few garden hose ports that are available. So packets are dropped and the service is degraded.

Netflix could fix this problem in one of two ways. It could pay for a fire hose connection instead of taking the garden hose connection that it can get through a standard peering relationship with Comcast. The large connection would accommodate the Netflix traffic. The other option is to distribute its traffic more evenly among other [Content Delivery Networks] that are delivering traffic to Comcast. In this case, the video traffic could get onto the Comcast network via the many garden hoses already connected to the Comcast network.

Of course, in either instance this would cost Netflix more money.
There are a couple of issues here. Netflix didn’t want to spend the money to play nice in the Internet po