The Myth of Net Neutrality

"Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication. The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access. 

Ah, the old equal access argument. Where have I heard that before (only all outcome based programs managed by government to produce equality). The threat to access is not from the private sector but the public and the allowance of the collection of power in the hands of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. Recently Mr. Genachowski has changed his rhetoric from harsher control of the airwaves to setting moderate goals (for now) as listed in an article by Erik Sherman called, 'Net Neutrality Faces a Political Gauntlet, and the Fall-Out Will Hit Tech Firms' in the article he gives this list of Genachowski's 'wish list':

"Broadband providers would have to tell consumers and businesses how they manage their networks. Consumers and businesses have a right to send and receive lawful traffic, so broadband providers could not block content, apps, services, or the connection of devices. No public or private entity could unreasonably discriminate in transmitting traffic so as not to effectively decide which businesses would win or lose. Broadband providers would have flexibility to manage their networks and to implement usage-based pricing, something that they've wanted for years. For now, it would be hands off wireless broadband other than requirements for transparency and a no-traffic-blocking rule."

In an article/video from Reason Magazine, "Net Neutrality' raises some suspicion regarding the pro-NN people and put up the 'caution lights' when finding out that Al Gore is a major supporter. Peter Suderman, Associate Editor, Reason, also points out from data, that there is no current suppression of content and that this is more about potentiality rather than current reality:

"Al Gore says that legislation ensuring "net neutrality" is "needed for the revitalization of American democracy." Techno-vegan Moby (music artist) says without it, the "egalitarian" Internet would disappear. Even Mallory from Family Ties, Justine Bateman, thinks "the freedom to access the site of any organization from Planned Parenthood to the Christian Coalition is going to end."

"But just what the hell is net neutrality-and is all that is good and holy about the Internet really imperiled if legislation guaranteeing it isn't passed? Network neutrality is necessary, say its supporters, to make certain that all data on the Internet is treated equally and to protect users from information discrimination on the part of Internet service providers who will slow down or even block access to certain sites."

The flag being waved in the Net Neutrality debate is the same one that has been waved around all social issues: Equality, Justice, Opportunity and Fairness. Those who favor big government solutions believe that the government through regulation and arbitrary laws can manage toward equality, justice, etc; while those who oppose big government solutions believe that freer markets with less government regulation provide a vibrant market for both

consumers and businesses.

What those who look for government solutions don't like is that resources (private capital) moves toward successful ventures and away from unsucessful ones, and through market dynamics it picks true 'winners and losers', which appears cruel. They would rather do that themselves through public policies. Neutrality just like Justice and Equality are arbitrary targets when taken collectively and 'winners and losers' are at the discretion of rulers (men and women in power) rather than markets.

Unfortunately history is replete with the best intentions (and worst) of government intervention for the greater good. In the Net Neutrality debate, open access is best defended through freer association and exchange which works best in markets rather than planned and managed by governments.