Net Neutrality Is Too Important To Leave To The GovernmentNet Neutrality Is Too Important To Leave To The Government

Techdirt takes a look at network neutrality and blasts the telecom lobby group Hands Off the Internet and its pernicious lie that big content providers like Google are freeloaders that don't pay for their bandwidth. That is simply not true: Any popular Web site pays colossal bandwidth charges to its Internet service provider. What the anti-net neutrality telcos want is the right to charge content providers like Google twice for the same service. Which is a good racket if you can get into it.

Moreover, I agree with Techdirt's central point: Network neutrality is important -- too important to be left to government regulators, who have a dismal record when attempting to regulate technology. Consider the horrendous Can-Spam Act and the vile Digital Millennium Copyright Act for two examples. I have no doubt that legislation with the stated purpose of preserving network neutrality would have precisely the opposite effect: Legislators would sit in back rooms with representatives of big business and emerge with network neutrality laws that favor companies with revenues greater than $1 billion. The laws would protect the Yahoos, Microsofts, and Googles of the world, while leaving innovative startups out in their cold garage.

The real problem with network neutrality is that there just isn't enough competition among Internet service providers. In most parts of the country, you can get a cable modem from your local cable TV provider, or a DSL line from your local telco, and that's pretty much it.

The net neutrality problem will solve itself if we can find a way to get consumers and businesses a plethora of broadband choices. Each individual ISP could then pick and choose which content it wants to provide its customers, and customers could pick and choose which ISPs to subscribe to. I have no doubt that, should that happy day arise, consumers would pick the providers that give them unlimited access, and any ISP foolish enough to limit choices to its customers would soon find itself out of business.

But how do we get to the point where there's a wide variety of choice in the market for Internet services? I don't know enough about that industry to answer that question. What do you think?