“Stuck in Neutral”

Well, I shouldn’t be surprised that someone beat me to the punch on the net neutrality pun. Here is a very well laid-out argument in the WSJ against “net neutrality” regulation, “Stuck in Neutral”. An excerpt:

Of course, the phone and cable companies own the networks through which Web surfers connect to Ask.com, eBay, Yahoo, et cetera. And they say that preferential charging would allow the spread of fancy new Web features that require more speed and reliability than currently available. Think of video calling over the Internet, or high-quality, full-screen video streaming (in contrast to the tiny window on which you now watch a video clip on your PC).

The Net neutrality crowd claims this is an attempt to set up "toll roads" on the Internet, holding Web sites to ransom, keeping users captive -- and "breaking the Net," to hear one industry exec tell it. Naturally, they'd rather not pay. So, naturally, they're asking Congress to pass a law saying they'll never have to. [...]

There's a term for this in the high-tech world. It's called FUD -- fear, uncertainty and doubt. [...]

Is innovation better served by undermining the property rights of network owners, or by reinforcing them?

I’ve said it many times before that premium services are part of a healthy and forward-looking market. The network providers would like to build the next generation of network, and the best way to do that is by allowing interested buyers to fund it.

If they deliver the goods, it will succeed and the consumer benefits. If they don’t, then we have net neutrality de facto.

Let’s not regulate it preemptively. Net neutrality regulation is a punishment in search of a crime, and is contrary to the innovative spirit that has brought us this far.

------

Update: The NYT has taken an opposing argument, not surprisingly. And yet, they assert one of the most basic premises of those of us who are against legislation:

Right now there's no data discrimination. That system has been a runaway success, but the urge to squeeze out a little more money has begun to endanger it.

It's an easy step from toll collector to bouncer. While Internet services providers would probably not block access to the sites of competitors and of those who cannot afford to pay a premium, the providers could shunt them over to a tier of service so slow that it would make them uncompetitive. And since much of the country has only one or two options for high-speed Internet service to start with, that could make customers' choices for them.

Emphases mine. The NYT is arguing for pre-emptive regulation of a heretofore successful system. At least they’re are honest about it.

The network providers could “shunt” their competitors to a lower level of service. They can do that today. But they don’t. Why? Because those customers (who have big pockets) would go looking for better service elsewhere.

As the PFF blog notes, the solution to the problem is competition, not regulation. Let’s allow the last 10 years of growth to be our guide.

------

See also: Tiers for Fears

Comments

[bridesmaiddresses]

While you want your maid of honor and bridesmaids to look beautiful at the wedding, you also want to keep their monetary obligation to a minimum.