Net Neutrality

I recently received the following question...


Somebody explain to me why the Dems support Net Neutrality and the GOP is against it? I've just read the proposed rules from the FCC and it seems fairly reasonable to me. I can't see why the GOP is so upset about it?


Yeah, the Internet has worked just fine without regulation all the while... but in the last few years we've seen signs of nearly monopolistic power on behalf of several ISP's that threaten the Internet operation. 


I'm serious. I don't get it. Unless somebody can explain otherwise I don't see how I support the GOP on this.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/throttle-away.ars

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/460485-Hutchison_To_FCC_Stand_Down_on_Net_Neutrality.php

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/will-we-have-net-neutrality-rules-by-christmas.ars

While I don't speak for the GOP, I can explain why I oppose net neutrality regulation.


The main problem with net neutrality is it is government regulation of a problem that doesn't need government regulation to fix it. It is only going to create legal and bureaucratic hangups and issues and some government imposed solutions to problems that, for the most part, are easily solved through non-government action.

It also extends the governments power to interfere in a private business simply because they provide data access. If I want to allow people to connect to the internet through my lines, but I want to block spammers, pornographers, or people attempting to block copyright laws, should I not be allowed to do that? Should the government be given the power to decide what traffic I'm allowed to stop and what I have to let through? If I wanted to provide a service which only allowed people to check email, should I not be allowed to do that?

As the the "problem" of ISPs blocking or limiting certain traffic, it is quite easily solved and, indeed, already has been by many in the file sharing communities. You can always encrypt traffic and route it through "normal" ports. You can cycle traffic through multiple ports, etc. It's simple to make one block of digital data look just like any other.

Finally, as to the issue of limited ISP options, that is not true in most places and is true in many places only because the ISPs have been providing enough service that there is no need for new markets to emerge. In cities you have Telecom, Power, Cable, Long Range Radio, and Satellite as options for providing bandwidth to most homes. In most areas not all of those options are available, but there are usually at least two until you leave for the rural areas. Some options are better than others in their overall limitations, but all can provide people with broadband access and if there is demand for a service which is not being offered, those offer several companies the ability to compete for bandwidth.

The lack of competition is simply due to the fact that most broadband offered is pretty much the same except that some companies have invested more in certain areas. They have done so because there isn't demand for something else. If an ISP were to restrict things too far it would create a demand for a greater service and the barriers to entry into that market, at least in non-rural areas are not great.

The GOP are acting not only to protect the rights of business to offer their services without government interference, but also opposing government regulation and expansion of government power into an area which clearly doesn't need it and will likely be harmed by the intervention.