I’ve avoided making my mind up about net neutrality for the last few months.  I’ve had to check my inherent opposition to government regulation as well as my own selfish interest in neutrality based on the fact that I operate this little blog with no financial resources.  The whole topic of net neutrality for me comes down to the very fundamental question of should the internet be treated as an essential ”right” (for lack of a better word) for all Americans?  If so, then it should be made available to all despite the necessary regulations.  If not, then the companies who put their capital at risk by developing the costly infrastructure should be able to charge whatever the market will bear.

I’m nearly convinced that for the long term interests of this country we need to mandate enhanced and expanded connectivity as well as net neutrality.

There are not many people who would argue that technology centered around the internet is not THE prime area for innovation in the foreseeable future.  The US is currently falling behind many other countries in terms of connection speed and percentage of people connected and the danger is that if we fall too far behind we may never be able to catch up.  Despite being a fervent believer in the free market, I recognize that there are situations in which government intervention can accelerate changes that the free market would have eventually caused.  A minimum wage spurs technological innovation - at the expense of higher unemployment.  Fuel economy standards also shift the innovation curve - although the cost of cars increase.  It pains me to some extent to say this, but every person should have affordable (if not free) access to the internet at a connection speed at least equivalent to modern DSL or cable modems.  The future of the US as the technological leader may hinge upon it.

Furthermore, monopolies - be they government or private - should not have any control over the priority of the traffic.  Setting up tolls could create a de facto barrier to entry so steep that entrenched companies may never be dethroned or challenged no matter how inferior or uncompelling their products might be.  Worse yet, with a small number of “gatekeepers” there is the substantial risk of the restriction of unacceptable speech - political, religious, or otherwise.  It is somewhat ironic that government regulation is needed to preserve competition and unfettered speech.

An amendment to ensure net neutrality sponsored by Ed Markey (D-MA) in the US House of Representatives failed 269-152 on June 8 of this year.  All of Alabama’s representatives voted against this amendment.  Markey still has a bill in the House (H.R. 5273) that is stalled in committee.  It may be another good reason for the Dems to take the House other than the fact that Republicans need to be punished for their performance over the last decade or so.  There is a similar bill in the Senate (S. 2917) that is co-sponsored by a handful of Democrats.

I would not be surprised to see this initiative become an element on someone’s 2008 campaign platform for the White House.  This is the type of “big idea” that can rally the people.

Related content:

This entry was posted by Brian on Monday, October 23rd, 2006 at 9:31 pm and is filed under Government. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Please note the copyright policy.