Print
E-mail
'Net Neutrality:' There Goes The Neighborhood
By James G. Lakely, For The Bulletin
The day before they slipped out of Washington for the August recess, Reps. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, which would give the deceptively benign ideal of “net neutrality” the force of law.
Giving legal heft to that concept would significantly change the nature of the Internet as we know it—for the worse.
Roughly defined, net neutrality means Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Web traffic, content and customers the same. Any “discrimination,” net neutrality advocates say, violates our “right” to “Internet freedom.”
A typical horror story involves an ISP, at peak usage hours, gently slowing down a tiny number of bandwidth hogs so the vast majority of its customers can surf the Web and send emails at the speed they expect. Insisting such a policy is unfair is not only counterintuitive, it’s counterproductive to demand the government stop it.
The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 is poorly named because it would do nothing to preserve freedom. HR 3458 would strip ISPs of the right to manage traffic on the networks they have spent billions to build, market and manage. In their place would emerge a cadre of detached government bureaucrats—hardly an improvement on the status quo.
Today, if a broadband customer does not approve of the way an ISP manages Web traffic, he can readily switch to a competitor more to his liking. ISPs have an enormous financial incentive to retain existing customers and attract new ones, so the free market encourages best practices.
But under HR 3458, if a broadband customer is not satisfied, what near-instant recourse will he have? None after government forces every ISP to operate “equally” by replacing market-based incentives with bureaucratic mandates. This would ensure an inevitable slide to “equally” shoddy service.
Yet news of this bill’s introduction thrilled groups like Public Knowledge and Free Press—who see ever-faster broadband speeds at lower prices and increasingly dynamic online content as problems government needs to fix.
“The future of the Internet as we know it depends on maintaining freedom and openness online,” said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press the day HR 3458 dropped. “This crucial legislation will help to ensure that the public—not big phone and cable companies—controls the fate of the Internet.”
I have no beef with the first part of that quote, but let’s be clear: Net neutrality advocates want the government, not “the public,” to control the fate of the Internet. The ordered chaos of market forces may scare those who don’t understand it. But the market is efficient, quickly responsive to the needs and wants of consumers, and—in the proper sense of the word—free.
Reps. Markey and Eshoo are apparently among the scared. And worse, they cleave to the erroneous notion that the government owns the Internet and has a right to manage broadband networks from Washington. If they get their wish and see HR 3458 signed into law, the public will pine for the heady, freedom-filled days of dial-up.
James G. Lakely is managing editor of Infotech & Telecom News and a research fellow at The Heartland Institute. He can be reached at jlakely@heartland.org.
Giving legal heft to that concept would significantly change the nature of the Internet as we know it—for the worse.
Roughly defined, net neutrality means Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Web traffic, content and customers the same. Any “discrimination,” net neutrality advocates say, violates our “right” to “Internet freedom.”
A typical horror story involves an ISP, at peak usage hours, gently slowing down a tiny number of bandwidth hogs so the vast majority of its customers can surf the Web and send emails at the speed they expect. Insisting such a policy is unfair is not only counterintuitive, it’s counterproductive to demand the government stop it.
The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 is poorly named because it would do nothing to preserve freedom. HR 3458 would strip ISPs of the right to manage traffic on the networks they have spent billions to build, market and manage. In their place would emerge a cadre of detached government bureaucrats—hardly an improvement on the status quo.
Today, if a broadband customer does not approve of the way an ISP manages Web traffic, he can readily switch to a competitor more to his liking. ISPs have an enormous financial incentive to retain existing customers and attract new ones, so the free market encourages best practices.
But under HR 3458, if a broadband customer is not satisfied, what near-instant recourse will he have? None after government forces every ISP to operate “equally” by replacing market-based incentives with bureaucratic mandates. This would ensure an inevitable slide to “equally” shoddy service.
Yet news of this bill’s introduction thrilled groups like Public Knowledge and Free Press—who see ever-faster broadband speeds at lower prices and increasingly dynamic online content as problems government needs to fix.
“The future of the Internet as we know it depends on maintaining freedom and openness online,” said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press the day HR 3458 dropped. “This crucial legislation will help to ensure that the public—not big phone and cable companies—controls the fate of the Internet.”
I have no beef with the first part of that quote, but let’s be clear: Net neutrality advocates want the government, not “the public,” to control the fate of the Internet. The ordered chaos of market forces may scare those who don’t understand it. But the market is efficient, quickly responsive to the needs and wants of consumers, and—in the proper sense of the word—free.
Reps. Markey and Eshoo are apparently among the scared. And worse, they cleave to the erroneous notion that the government owns the Internet and has a right to manage broadband networks from Washington. If they get their wish and see HR 3458 signed into law, the public will pine for the heady, freedom-filled days of dial-up.
James G. Lakely is managing editor of Infotech & Telecom News and a research fellow at The Heartland Institute. He can be reached at jlakely@heartland.org.
 |
 |
|
| Populations We Don’t Want Too Many Of? | In Honor of Milton Friedman, ‘Father of School Choice’ |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
