It’s been a little over 2 years since one of my business idols replied to a question of mine during their Reddit AMA and I recoiled in horror to what I read. Mark Cuban, internet mogul, NBA team owner, and all-around maverick – wanted to do away with the concept of Net Neutrality.

In that Reddit AMA answer Mr. Cuban said he wanted to see preferential treatment for things like medical applications over say your Skype call with grandma or your Google search for how to impress a girl. Reddit was not super happy with the response replying with comments like

I’m sorry Mark, I’ve loved most of your answers so far but this would simply kill the internet. – unknown

This gave me a tingly feeling in my no nos – yglm2

and

I understand as a businessman in your position why you favor it. I’ve read articles as far back as 6 years ago with you being a big proponent of it.

It’s a horribly bad idea for the little guys, and just peachy for big ones. – mindzipper

Fast forward 2ish years and the FCC has passed Net Neutrality regulations to the collective joy of internet users the world over and the unhappiness of the ex FCC chair and current head of the Cable Industry Lobby, hardline Republicans, Nokia, and Mark Cuban. The later of which took to Twitter and started posting his thoughts about Net Neutrality, something he’s not been afraid to do for nearly a decade and once again our fates became intertwined, the billionaire and the pauper.

Mr. Cuban started by asserting that the FCC would now regulate all bits and bytes stating that the FCC could require a ‘v-chip’ in mobile devices and computers to censor internet delivered media like videos and movies:
https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/572098804058468352

Cubes kind of has a point here, and it’s something I was afraid of hindering Net Neutrality itself not so long ago when the FCC said they wanted to regulate “internet tv”. Who knows what the future holds for the internet as it’s use expands beyond websites and mobile and deep into media, medicine, military, and the internet of things. What worries me is Mr. Cuban’s lack of understanding of the history of Net Neutrality. For someone who has railed against it for so long you would think he’d have a solid grasp on the history of the idea, policy, and regulations that lead up to the terminology we use today and the policy that was just passed by the FCC to protect the equality of data on ISP’s networks.

Had I known of this video then I would have told him to watch it and to pay close attention to the definiton of ISPs and “Enhanced Services”

The video does an excellent job of explaining telecommunications neutrality, title II, and how the ISPs have fought net neutrality since the 1990’s.

Mark then went on to discuss Netflix stating that if the company was no longer in business there would be more than enough bandwidth for everyone. Now that’s a powerful statement, assessing in short that if we the consumers just didn’t want to do so many cool things with our internet like watch online streaming movies instead of going to Blockbuster, rummaging for a DVD, taking it home, watching it, forgetting to return it on time, and paying a late fee we would all have more than enough of that there internet – dang you Netflix!
https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/572187929646252033

I pointed out to him that in his Reddit AMA in reply to my question a few years earlier he had stated he only wanted some sort of prioritization for things like medical applications to ensure they did not lose connectivity that could be crucial in the near future. His first reply to this was that the FCC got “more involved” seemingly missing just how involved the FCC has been in communication regulation (spoiler: they have been just as involved throughout the internet’s history) as I pointed out earlier on.
https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/572190664047243264

He also went on to state that he’s a Netflix shareholder and has no ill will towards them, but that he’s frustrated that “one company defines the conversation”
https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/572190807089922049

I disagree here again. While Netflix internet traffic might “define” how bandwidth is used by consumers it is not Netflix but Verizon and Comcast that have defined the conversation over Net Neutrality for a decade. Instead of building out networks to provide faster and more stable internet connection these companies have been trying to find ways to force the consumer to pay even more money for the exact same internet experience while providing substandard connections, speeds, and customer service when compared to other countries and fighting to keep competition from being created. So sure today we all use Netflix, a lot. But it could literally be anything that would have set this off due to the attitudes of the monopolistic cable companies and their agenda for the internet.

Of all the people I’ve debated over the recent Net Neutrality ruling, and there’s oddly been a lot of people angry about it thanks to awful propaganda and misinformation campaigns, Mr. Cuban is clearly the critic who has the clearest view of why they think it’s bad and the most valid points to make, but Mark Cuban’s internet based on altruistic ISPs only prioritizing web traffic for the better good of humanity is a thing of pure absolute fantasy that would be more likely to be found in an Isaac Asimov novel than in the real world we live in. If the U.S.A. ever does what he suggests – even with the purest form of altruistic intentions – we would see despots the world over have more ammo to censor and filter internet traffic with less backlash from the international community. It would be devastating to freedom of speech and expression and would be twisted in due time to allow major business oligarchs to build barriers to entry on the web in whatever form the future demands stifling innovation and creativity and delivering the American public a homogenized experience.

I think Mr. Cuban has given us some foreshadowing of the future of the internet and his worry about FCC meddling (beyond Net Neutrality regulation) might be well founded. We the people need to stay vigilant not just over the FCC but over the ISPs that would be our content governors and censors. Right now the answer to the bandwidth problem is to increase bandwidth by updating and improving infrastructure, the cable monopolies claim it’s too costly but systems like Google Fiber and iProvo have shown that it’s merely the will of the networks themselves stopping the infrastructure upgrades, not the demand of the people or the cost to do so. However, that is for now. There may come a time when increasing the amount of / speed of bandwidth becomes impossible and a time when we are funneling more traffic than ever over the internet. At that time, and only at that time, should we consider partitioning off parts of the web putting needs like medical data over wants like a streaming movie. That is a distant future though.

For now, right now, we have freedom on the internet – all packets are created equal and all packets are treated equal.

Rejoice.