Proponents of net neutrality claim that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) abuse their position as “gatekeepers” to the Web, and the public needs government to establish strict “rules of the road” to protect us from their scheming. Trouble is, the evidence of abusive practices by ISPs is anecdotal and thinner than an iPod mini. The digital economy is currently so dynamic and cutthroat that free-market forces work quickly to correct any undesirable hiccups that arise — all without any micro-managing of the tech industry by government.

Net neutrality advocates insist we need government to preserve an “open” and “free” Internet and claim the market has failed. But they cannot point to any market failures that make the Internet less open or free. In short, the Internet isn’t broken. And it doesn’t need a government fix. No matter. The left presses ahead, because the facts are irrelevant. The goal is to put government in charge of digital policy, taking away your freedom as a consumer to shape the Internet with your own choices.

This would stifle the enormous private investment and innovation that has created the modern Internet — in part, because industries would be relegated to playing “Mother May I?” with the FCC before releasing its latest innovation. And that’s the best-case scenario. The Reason Foundation’s Steve Titch argues that if government-enforced net neutrality rules were in place five years ago, the iPhone as we know it wouldn’t exist. But on a more basic level, only a committed leftist could believe that more government involvement in … well … anything results is more economic dynamism and gains in personal freedom.

As noted in the video below, produced by The Heartland Institute, government isn’t in the business of preserving freedom, but of exercising power to regulate industries and control people. And this is an important thing to keep in mind — especially since President Obama recently reiterated his commitment to have government enforce a net neutrality regime on your Internet.

The video takes apart Obama’s statements on the subject in his Feb. 1 YouTube interview, and attempts to take the broader view so what’s at stake can be better understood by non-techies.

Through continued research of the Net Neutrality debate, distinct realizations come to mind for Regulators’, Consumers, and Network Providers alike in pondering the heated discussions around whether either regulation, or a (hands-off) approach, are sufficient to allow unfettered and equal access, including clear competition, and that all are present on the Broadband pipelines.

First there has continued to be somewhat of a hysteria and possibly pre-ordained fear, albeit without serious incidents of record, that network providers both have and will continue to throttle speeds and limit access of their customers to the copious amounts of content becoming available through the Internet. Perhaps the hysteria has unfolded as a result of one BitTorrent case, or associated with a fear of other industry debacles as seen with banks, Insurance companies, Investor Management companies, and Wall Street, driving the public to government as their interventionist in reigning in these industries; but how realistic are these fears based on the current Internet model?

Regulation can hamper Broadband Access and Adoption

Increased regulation of a burgeoning Internet on the verge of offering just the recipe the FCC is mandating could backfire in helping startup companies materialize and grow while slowing the proliferation of increased infrastructure, and network upgrades. Without the freedom to invest and seek sufficient ROI’s network providers will cut costs rather than invest for the future. This could stunt job creation, a by-product of innovation and free-flowing investment, in an industry with a broad potential to produce applications and services for the Internet.

Network Management Polices will continue to improve and evolve to handle varying Traffic Needs

It is in the best interest of private network providers to provide the best network management policies for all users in continuing to build their consumer and business base. This correlates to (Business Management – Best Practices-101). If a company cannot offer the best experience for its customers all businesses, whether an Internet Provider or a Wal-Mart, cannot survive the long term.

Use of Anti-Trust Statutes to curtail (Bad-Actors)

Absent a serious history of abuses within the Internet pipelines the FCC should concentrate on harnessing (bad-Actors) with Anti-Competitive Statues, not regulation, allowing that these companies will receive stiff penalties, and will certainly be brought to the forefront via customers and competitors having been abused, disenfranchised, and denied access to fair treatment.

Incentives rather than Regulation

Broadband Stimulus Plan funds should be used to incent companies to build new infrastructure and upgrade their networks to realize an adoption and access vision which the FCC has been mandated to accomplish. First, detailed maps must be created to determined where the infrastructure is located, and where it is not. Then current providers of Telephone, Cable, or Wireless are incented to build and upgrade their networks in rural areas to provide needed Internet services. Monies will be better spent with incentives associated to quantifiable results rather than regulation and mandates of an existing industry.

The Cable Pipeline has written about both sides of the Net Neutrality issue. It is without question a passionate and personal debate with results having far reaching implications in the lives of individuals, businesses, and public sectors alike. The FCC has been prudent in seeking comment from all stakeholders which will hopefully produce the right results for all concerned. When the dust settles, my preference would lean more toward less regulation and more incentives therefore spurring economic growth and job creation.

In what has become a sound board for Free Press, Huffington Post published an attack piece this past weekend by Timothy Karr.  Karr is the front man for SaveTheInternet.com, a site run by Free Press.  The site has been a continuous emotional response to the issue of Net Neutrality for the last several years, a complete and full introspective of grand potential disaster scenarios for the future of the Internet, and short on data.  Karr is to Net Neutrality what Al Gore is to man-made Global Warming.  Essentially, without the strong hand of the all knowing government, the Internet as we know it is doomed.

Karr’s most recent article attacking telecommunications consultant Larry Downes is what I would term “astroturf research”.  Last week, CNET published an article by Downes that considers the possibility that the White House is stepping back from strict and over reaching Net Neutrality regulation.  This is Downes opinion, and one that he brings evidence to the table for.  We know this is his opinion because in the second paragraph of the article he states, “That’s my reading, of a number of recent developments, underscored by comments made by government speakers on a panel on the first day of a Tech Policy Summit at CES in Las Vegas.”

Downes is a journalist.  And he’s doing what journalists do, observe and report, nothing more.  In recent months several think tanks have advised that last Fall’s FCC Net Neutrality Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) could potentially thwart the expansion of broadband across the nation to rural areas.  Specifically what are referred to as “underserved and unserved” areas of the country.  The basic notion is that by restricting the methods in which network engineers can manage their networks by way of Net Neutrality regulation, the costs of running small networks in these underserved and unserved areas will increase to the point of making them financially unsustainable.  Downes simple observation is that he believes the Obama Administrations priority is broadband expansion rather than Net Neutrality.

This suggestion does not mean that the FCC will relinquish its move toward Net Neutrality regulation.  It’s simply suggesting that Downes believes current movements and commentary indicates that the White House may be pushing it to the back burner and asking our bureaucrats to focus on broadband expansion.

Instead of acknowledging this possibility or even providing evidence to the contrary, Karr has the audacity to attack Downes credibility.  He quotes Nancy Scola of The American Prospect repeating a comment that Downes is consulting for AT&T, thus implying that he obviously can’t be unbiased in any of his reporting.  On one hand there is no evidence that Downes has been contacted to see if this accusation is even true.  On the other hand, what would it matter if it is true?  SaveTheInternet.com and Free Press are notorious for calling out other individuals and organizations for working with or accepting donations from others that share their view on policy.  But how does the not-for-profit Free Press bring in its operating budget?

“Right. Free Press takes no money from any industry groups or any members of the technology industry. We’re supposed to believe that thousands of individuals bust open their piggy banks and send the coins to Free Press’s offices … or something. Maybe a money tree Free Press grows in the garden between its unicorn pen and the jungle gym for leprechauns finance its $4 million annual budget.

It’s hard to say for sure because when you look at the group’s 990 forms to the IRS, the names of the donors are redacted. On the top of every page of contributors on Free Press’ 2007 forms is a hand-written note: “Not open to public inspection. –James G. Lakely, The Heartland Institute”

Downes currently serves as a fellow for the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society.  However, Karr chooses to try and dissect this as well commenting that, “Too many ‘scholars’ live this sort of double life – trading on academic credentials to lay a gloss of credibility over their telco-friendly arguments.  It’s up to news orgs (ahem… CNET) to disclose both sides of their personalities.”  It is my understanding that this comment was made from the Mount Olympus of double standards and arrogance.  SaveTheInternet.com and Free Press have made no bones siding with the likes of scholars like Tim Wu, who is Chair of Free Press, and Larry Lessig, both staunch Net Neutrality regulation proponents.  But they have never questioned these scholars about potential ulterior motives.  Furthermore, Larry Lessig himself founded the Center for Internet and Society, and would have absolutely had a say in bringing Downes on as a fellow for the project.  Are we really to believe that Lessig would have brought Downes in on a project as high profile as this at the 3^rd ranked Stanford Law School if he was suspect of devious motives?

The reality of the matter is this:  Free Press and its umbrella groups have online media spin down to a science, and I will be the first to admit that they are consummate professionals to a degree that only Bobby Jones could appreciate.

Free Press criticizes those that speak out against their goals for being puppets of the industry that shares that agenda.  They however will not criticize those that share their opinion that receive support from the industry that promotes the Free Press agenda.  Are we really to believe that industry giants like Amazon, YouTube, Google, etc, have hired no lobbyist or government relations organizations to represent them in the Net Neutrality debate?  Are we really to believe these corporate giants will not benefit financially from regulation and that they are not pouring any money into the system to protect their own interests?  Free Press would have us think that it is only possible to be a shill for an industry if you are opposing their view point when the fact of the matter is that Free Press is a shill themselves.

-nick

The article is on a piece that Timothy Karr, the guy who runs savetheinternet.com a Free Press site, wrote that was just raunchy.  Not in sort of a back alley, red light district sense, but from the unscrupulous, “you’ve got to be kidding me” sense.  The piece was written to try and brush off some reporting Larry Downes had produced based on some policy perspective he had at CES, but instead of producing counter evidence to this reporting, Karr decides to attack Downes credibility.  Stay classy.  I’ve been reading Downes for a long time.  The guy is a respected journalist and he has good things to say.  That doesn’t mean he’s always right, or that I agree with him on every point he makes, it just means that if you have his portfolio it should buy you some respect to the point that just because you don’t agree with him you don’t try to throw his credentials under a bus.

This isn’t even to mention that all the people over at Free Press are socialists anyway and they should be sharing the love around.

So you can head over and see the post here.  I’ll probably repost it here in a couple of days after I allow TheDC its due.  Not like you are going to wait around for the posting here, but I’m just saying, for cataloging sake, it will be here eventually too.

-nick

You can swing over to digitalsociety.org and find some nice commentary on Bart Stupak’s proposed legislation that would allow more than two FCC commissioners to meet at one time. Something that has up till now been prevented to stop acts of collusion.

Check it out here.

-nick

But the really troubling thing here is that the Berkman Center Study on Broadband is being used as a key component to the decision making.? Check out this post, you can find a flurry of other posts and data that shows the Berkman study was severely flawed, which makes the FCC decision making process to go ahead and use the study seriously questionable.

-nick

It apparently does to White House Deputy Technology Office Andrew McLaughlin.? This week McLaughlin compared opposing government mandated control over Internet content delivery the same thing as China censoring the Internet.? He continued,

?If it bothers you that the China government does it, it should bother you when your cable company does it,? McLaughlin said.

When we are talking about Net Neutrality, we are clearly no longer talking about the same thing as the liberals in the White House.

Look, there is simply no evidence that ISP’s want to block content.? In fact they would be nuts to do so.? Additionally, there is no evidence that the government will not block or censor content either.? What people need to begin to realize is that for the FCC to implement their recently proposed NPRM, they will at some level have to monitor traffic.? There is no clear detail how they will be doing this or if they will be monitoring at the content level.

McLaughlin makes the comparison of the ability of ISP’s to block content to China’s censoring knowing full well that the government could soon have the same ability.? The double standard is brilliant, and the ploy convincing to those who aren’t familiar with the heart of the issue.? Compare anti-neutrality sentiment to a country that strictly limits freedom of speech online and quickly bring in the sheep.

If you want to seek out actual information on the issue, read all sides, that’s fine.? Then make a decision that is best for you and your house.? But while you’re at it look up the contributions from Google, Amazon, Yahoo, and Ebay to the Obama campaign compared to the McCain campaign, and know that you should take anything coming out of the White House on this issue with a grain of salt.? It’s a big fat payback for monies paid in advance.

Here’s the discourse between the two of us.? If you’d care to dissent at my logic and explain how game traffic would still survive even without QoS then go ahead and let me know.

spastkid:

Your arguments about how those who support video gaming shouldn’t support net neutrality doesn’t even begin to make sense. Let’s say, net neutrality fails, who’s to say that there will not be any ISP?who will set packets by online games to a lower priority such that their “time-sensitive” VOIP?packets do not get interrupted by those pesky gamers who dare to use their purchased connection to play online games?

Also, your post seems to be filled with strawmen arguments. I doubt that you would find someone here who is somewhat up to date on net neutrality issues who would think that it is all about blocking websites. While it IS?true that your “gaming traffic” will have no priority over your neighbour’s traffic of a “lower priority”, your neighbour’s traffic isn’t going to have any priority over yours anyway..

————————————————————————

Oooh! You mean there are people around with the mythical “Common Sense”?

And my response:

So your position then is that you would rather have government mandated rules that will with 100% certainty if passed, destroy your online gaming experience rather than have no regulation with a increadibly small percentage chance that an ISP?would delay an extremely small bandwidth application?

Not only is that insane logic, but it would never happen.? On one hand Neutralist want to claim that ISP’s want to block high bandwidth applications like torrenting so that small applications can get through.? Now on the other hand you want to claim that ISP’s want to block small applications for the big ones. ?You can’t have it both ways.

There is zero reason why an ISP would want to block an application like an online video game that is on average taking up roughly 300Kbps.? That is basically non-existent traffic compared to other applications and content delivery mechanisms on the Internet.? The only difference is that without priority, your game is screwed.

Yes, you are correct, your gaming traffic will have no priority over your neighbors bit torrent traffic, and his torrent traffic will have no priority over your video game traffic.? You are absolutely, 100%, without a doubt correct on this point.? And that is the crux of the entire issue.

This is very common sense at this point, and considering your sig, you should appreciate this.? If gaming is a time-sensitive application, and torrenting is not a time sensative application.? What happens when torrent packets get queue stacked behind your gaming traffic at the neighborhood router? Nothing.? What happens when your gaming packets get queue stacked behind your neighbors torrent traffic at the router? Your game lags and when the new packets finally get through, you’ve died, you crashed, you fell down a hole, whatever. Game over.

-nick