Net Neutrality = "Socialized Internet"

Or so Scott Cleland, chairman of netcompetition.org would have you believe. How do we know? Today on NPR he was given the opportunity to speak out against Net Neutrality legislation. Instead of having experts comment on the issue, NPR has decided to do what so many in the press do with issues like global warming. Give both sides equal standing. Today the microphone was handed to the anti-neutrality spokesman. Tomorrow, Craig Newmark will make the case for net neutrality.

The reason for this post is to highlight the devious arguments used by net neutrality opponents. Here is a transcript of what Scott Cleveland said this morning: (emp add)

So what is Net Neutrality?

It's really a debate over dueling visions of the future of the Internet.

Net Neutrality proponents worry that telecom, wireless, and cable companies might one day favor their own content and applications over others. They want Congress to pass a new law to ban that practice by regulating the price of broadband service and the way it's sold. Net competition proponents like me believe that the best way to guard a free and open Internet is to maintain the free and open competition that exists today. Not create a new government-monitored socialized Internet.

First, Net Neutrality is really a misnomer. It's really just special interest legislation dressed up to sound less self-serving. Did you know Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo are lobbying for Net Neutrality? If they're successful, they'll get a special, low, government-set price for the bandwidth they use, while everyone else, consumers, businesses, and government will have to pay a competitive price for bandwidth. Doesn't sound very "neutral" to me.

Second, Net Neutrality would be a 180 degree reversal of the government's highly successful policy to promote competition and not regulate the Internet. Amazingly, proponents of this radical change of policy don't even have any real evidence of a problem. Only unsubstantiated assertions about hypothetical problems.

Finally, Net Neutrality legislation would be a lousy tradeoff for consumers. The consumer benefits would be small, but the cost to consumers would be huge. Price regulation would destroy any economic incentive to innovate and invest in the private networks that make up the Internet. Over time, we would end up with a slower Internet and higher broadband prices and taxes for consumers, less broadband choice and slower broadband deployment to all Americas. And it would also mean less privacy for all Americans. Net Neutrality would require more government monitoring and surveillance of Internet traffic.

In short, don't be fooled by the superficial appeal of the Net Neutrality legislation. The idea is rotten to the core because it's a heavy-handed fix to a nonexistent problem and it's a lousy cost-benefit tradeoff for consumers.

Dig that privacy argument! With unmonitored snooping by the NSA going on, we're supposed to be upset if the government checks that contracts between telcos and websites are non discriminatory?

Oh, and don't forget that Net Neutrality is the first step in a Stazi-style communications system.

What a joke. And what a joke that NPR sees fit to allow this unrebutted* commentary to be aired.

* - saying there will be a counter-argument the next day is no way to hold a debate.


posted by Quiddity at 6/21/2006 07:32:00 PM