Net Neutrality's Quiet Crusader ( Marxist Free Press / Puff Piece )

Bearing video cameras, laptops and cellphones, a small army of young activists flooded into a recent federal meeting in protest. Members of public-interest group Free Press weren't there to support a presidential candidate or decry global warming. The tech-savvy hundreds came to the Federal Communications Commission's hearing at Harvard Law School last month to push new rules for the Internet. For the first time, Congress and the FCC are debating wide-reaching Web regulations and policies that would determine how much control cable and telecommunications companies would have over the Internet. The issue has given rise to a new political constituency raised on text messaging and social networking and relies on e-mail blasts and online video clips in its advocacy.

It is very simple. The "original intention" of net neutrality was to disallow ISPs from blocking traffic to certain sites. It arose when the former AT&T chief suggested that Google pay AT&T for the privilege of AT&T's customers browsing Google's website and it was rightfully compared to the "common carrier" status enjoyed by phone companies.

However, like all good intentions, net neutrality morphed into disallowing ISPs from giving priority (and of course deprioritizing) certain types of traffic. With this rule in place, ISPs had no choice but to cap all traffic at a certain level, because the cap impacts all traffic equally. Unfortunately, this opened the door for ISPs to impose ridiculously low caps and insane overages for crossing said caps. This is definitely not the way we want to go in terms of a "broadband policy."

“It is very simple. The “original intention” of net neutrality was to disallow ISPs from blocking traffic to certain sites. It arose when the former AT&T chief suggested that Google pay AT&T for the privilege of AT&T’s customers browsing Google’s website and it was rightfully compared to the “common carrier” status enjoyed by phone companies.
However, like all good intentions, net neutrality morphed into disallowing ISPs from giving priority (and of course deprioritizing) certain types of traffic. With this rule in place, ISPs had no choice but to cap all traffic at a certain level, because the cap impacts all traffic equally. Unfortunately, this opened the door for ISPs to impose ridiculously low caps and insane overages for crossing said caps. This is definitely not the way we want to go in terms of a “broadband policy.” “

I really have to disagree with this assessment a bit. Net neutrality is a very libertarian concept and from a libertarian standpoint, the right thing to do. Yes, it will lead to congestion of certain types of traffic and yes some ISPs will impose caps. But that’s when capitalism will kick in and customers will vote with their monthly bills and change ISPs that have invested in bigger pipes and routing equipment...this includes national and international fiber infrastructure as was done in the mid-late nineties. We still have lots of dark fiber with which to expand and once net neutrality kicks in, investors will turn to laying more.

The answer to congestion that results from net neutrality is the same as it is for congestion on highways and roads, i.e., build more and bigger highways and roads. The cities that have done this have won huge gains in capital from outfits like logistics and shipping companies when they have done this. I believe the same will happen with net neutrality.

Keep the net open and free and let capitalism work. Freedom first, capitalism to organize it. Those two ideals have served us well in the past.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.