Net Neutrality - A Solution in Search of a Problem

Posted on May 6, 2008 by Dave Williams

Isn’t the Internet cool?  You get to surf the net to buy things, check sports scores and even read a blog or two.  Things seem to be working pretty well, huh?  Well, that hasn’t stopped the government from trying to regulate the Internet under the guise of net neutrality.  What is net neutrality?  According to a report by CAGW last year:

Network neutrality, a.k.a. net neutrality, is generally defined as a system that allows information on the Internet to move freely without regard to content, destination or source. Net neutrality is based on a false premise that Internet content is being or will be denied to any user. It is not in the best interest of any business to deny access to the Internet.

Well, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) believes the government should regulate the Internet.  In fact, on May 6, 2008 Rep. Markey held a hearing just for that purpose.  In a letter opposing net neutrality, CCAGW argued that such government interference would be detrimental.

So, if the government were to regulate the Internet, that would mean a whole new bureaucracy to “monitor” the Internet and the government would have the power to tell companies what they could and couldn’t do.  A lose-lose scenario.  Does this really sound like it is in the best interest of the taxpayer or consumer?

P.S.  Shhhhh, don’t tell the government about this blog posting, they may want to shut it down.

 

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

Filed under: Regulation, Technology, Telecommunications

« An Extreme Makeover for the San Joaquin River Don’t forget about the day job, Senators! »

3 Responses to “Net Neutrality - A Solution in Search of a Problem”

  1. Jeff, on May 6th, 2008 at 7:41 pm Said:

    You’ve completely missed the point. I would be in the interests of Comcast to limit access for its subscribers to a competing movie on demand service. Many would then say I would switch carriers lets say to Verizon. But what if the infrastructure companies who also provide movie services all limit access to third party movie providers. This would have a stifling effect on the Internet and economic innovation. This is the point of Net Neutrality.

    A properly regulated free market is in everyone’s best interest.

  2. Dave Williams, on May 7th, 2008 at 7:06 am Said:

    I am very confused on two points:

    A. Why would Comcast, or any other provider, limit access? They would lose customers. The whole point of operating a business is to expand your customer base, not contract it.

    B. Do you really trust the government that brought you a $200 million Bridge to Nowhere to understand the dynamics of the Internet?

    Oh, by the way, a “regulated free market” is an oxymoron.

  3. Kamuela Franco, on May 7th, 2008 at 9:14 am Said:

    Dave:
    A. In the long run, yes it would hurt their business. But they’re not looking at the long run. There are many short-term financial gains to be made from squeezing out access to competitors. And the problem is also that many places do not have access to so many providers, so they would be literally censored from certain information.

    B. A moot point. Do I trust the government to do anything right? Not really, but that doesn’t mean murder and rape should be legalized because we don’t have a perfect justice system.

    There needs to be some form of net neutrality, one that benefits both sides. Laissez-faire will only make things worse in this case.

Leave a Reply