Neutrality predictions already coming true

One of my many arguments against net neutrality legislation is that it involves the federal government in an issue with which it wasn’t involved previous. We do not currently have neutrality legislation, and the variety and size of the Internet are growing apace. We are doing very well.

I am not against neutrality as an outcome, if that is what the consumer demands. Sounds fine to me, I might even demand it too.

My opposition is to a neutrality mandate from government. The federal government is obese, muscle-bound and senile, and there is simply no such thing as a light touch, no matter how hard they try.

Further, by setting a precedent for government dictating the architecture and performance the network, there is no limit on future regulation. How about search engine neutrality, for example? Google is a major gateway to a lot of sites, and shouldn’t we mandate fairness? Seems only right. All the arguments for network neutrality apply.

The reason I bring this up is that my warnings of unintended government encroachment are already coming true. Today, a House committee approved a strongly regulatory approach to the issue. And many normally free-market Republicans voted for it. Why? To expand their turf:

In an unusual twist, many members of the committee said they were voting for the legislation not because of strong concerns over Net neutrality--but instead because of a turf battle. They said they were worried that a competing proposal already approved by a different committee last month would diminish their own influence in the future.

Can you believe it? Whatever light touch neutrality proponents were promising has already gone out the window, due to the very nature of big government. Today, the government grabbed power over the 'net that it didn’t have before.

Folks, the issue with neutrality is not that we don’t have good intentions. The goals of neutrality are fine. But giving that power to the government is a recipe for pain.

Comments

[Net Chick]

How true it is. The government does not need MORE power, MORE regulation opportunities. Why are they trying to regulate something that is not even needed???

[Luv2Box]

Net neutrality isn't a mandate from the government, but rather a demand from big players like Google and Yahoo who are brain-washing the government into believing they need to regulate the Internet. Nothing needs to be regulated here and it would be a complete waster of government time (what else is new). We need to keep the internet free and open to competition because this is what consumers demand - a place where competition keeps prices real and innovation driven.

[SoCal619]

It's sad to say, but how many time has the government been led down the wrong road by special interests? I think that until the time comes when legitimate concerns or issues need intervention, the government should focus on some of the real issues facing America today...at this juncture, consumers and their spending dollar should determine the path and expansion of internet...

[The Gentle Cricket]

in "The World is Flat", Thomas Friedman discusses how countires like Japan are far ahead of us in terms of connectivity. Any legislation that will stifle investment should be condemned.
We should be promoting expansion of the internet as a means to fuel our economy, not regulating it.

[Matt S]

Well, GC, the neutrality proponents are arguing that neutrality is required to allow the next wave of Googles and Skpes to happen. They make comparisons to our highway system.

I think it's bunk -- the next wave of innovation will require the freedom to experiment throughout the network. Allowing higher-end solutions like prioritized traffic may bring in new video competition, or example. The right architecture(s) remain to be seen. Neutrality essentially locks the network into its current state.

[netpenguin]

This has been my biggest fear with the whole debacle. Moveon and friends are supporting net neutrality because Google is paying them to, but even they might not be so pleased with a highly-regulated Internet that is beholden to the whims (and, apparently, the egos) of our elected officials. I, for one, am not interested in having Google dig our own grave for their own financial benefit.

[Katie70954]

The last thing consumers need is the government trying to regulate something that they know nothing about. Consumers will take their business to the provider with the best prices that give them the most internet freedom as we have now. Net Neutrality only opens the door for further arguments and more regulations to come in the future. The more arguments and regulations, the less freedom we have as consumers.

[King Of Apathy]

I think it is pompous that Congressmen believe they need to control something that is not solely theirs. Control should be left up to all consumers here and abroad. The great thing about the interent is that it grew from nothing into a worldwide means of communication. That growth is attributed to a hands-off, consumer-driven internet market. Rest assured, once the government starts to regulate with thier "light touch" everything on the web will be under their control, and we will knock the legs out from under this fast-moving form of communication. Now more than every, we have different options. I think we need to keep it that way.

[Boxford]

I think almost everyone supports the principles of net neutrality. But have they been violated? And if they were violated, doesn't current FCC authority protect consumers already?