Resisting the net neutrality Kool Aid?

It appears that the current draft of a new communications bill has held off on mandating ‘net neutrality. I think this is a hopeful move and the right one — we don’t need new legislation to dictate how bits cross the wire.

Proponents of neutrality legislation argue that the the absence of such “would fail to protect the Internet.” Trust me, even though the motives behind ‘net neutrality sound generally benign, I think most tech firms will rue the day they invited the federal government into their routing tables. Check out my extended rants sophisticated analyses here.

(While on the subject, Declan McCullagh, the author of the above article, has a fascinating series on how technology firms lobby for influence in Washington.)

-----

Update: This post at News.com actually gives a much better overview of the current state of the debate. Here’s Rep. Barton:

"This bill will produce an explosion of opportunity for American workers, and American consumers will get an array of video services that were unimagined just a few years ago"

I think that’s exactly right. As I’ve described, the last ten years have seen an unprecedented explosion of innovation emerge from the Wild West of the Web. Why would we try to legislate it now?

Here’s Public Knowledge:

The provisions will not stop the cable and telephone companies from degrading Internet traffic and they do not contain strong enough penalties to discourage misbehavior. Without stronger legislation, the cable and telephone companies will have the power to change the fundamental nature of the Internet. This bill needs significant improvement before it will preserve the open Internet that consumers and service providers expect and deserve.

Emphases mine. Two things notable here. The first is that they are taking a fundamentally punitive approach to the issue — the solution seems to be in finding the most discouraging penalties. Keep in mind, one person’s misbehavior is another person’s innovation.

The second is that they do not want change. “Power to change” is downright aspirational for a technologist like me, and yet is used as a pejorative above. PK believes that it is more important to “preserve”, and I think this is exactly not the spirit (or history) of the Internet. It is, dare I say, nannyish.

Here’s Sen. Wyden:

"This legislation begins the construction of a multilayered, toll-strewn information superhighway that is out of sync with what has made the Internet work: access for all"

Sorry, that is plain wrong. What has made the Internet work is a free market and an absence of inhibitions on protocols or performance.

The best way to find out if Sen. Wyden is right is to take a snapshot of the current state of the net — performance, variety of content, quality of experience — and take a look five years from now, should we manage to hold off a neutrality mandate. Does he sincerely believe that users’ experiences will be degraded by the addition of a “fast lane”? It stands counter to reason and to history.

-----

Another thought (damn, I need to get a life): Internet2 is exactly as neutrality proponents fear. It is a high-bandwidth dedicated network, with QoS. Does anyone believe it’s hurting the traditional Internet?

Comments

[The Gentle Cricket]

As a former Oregonian, Wyden used to be my Senator. He's become more and more looney over the years.

[oldhats]

Bravo! Consumers are "protected" from the big bad telcos by a healthy free market and current FCC authority. And the internet is "protected" only when Congress doesn't regulate it into oblivion.

[AJ Carey]

While I hope that you aren't actually the only republican in San Fran (though I fear you might be), I am greatly pleased to read your postings on this issue. Common sense and experience clearly prove that what is best for the internet is to let it be.