all the speech in quotes you cite comes from Tim Berners Lee. 

 Me - i would push back a little to your analysis. Of course government has a role to play-if only getting out of the way every now and then and letting innovation happen. But I agree Congress stinks of dirty scuzz. But the telcos are doing serious lobbying for a reason. I believe the state does have a role in markets, and i guess that's where we disagree. I dont believe in markets as an absence of rules. I believe rules create markets. 

James,

In general, I don't disagree.  The problem is that there's a track record with "public utilities" here in the US.  With the old Bell system, we had a governmentally approved monopoly.  With TV and Radio, we have a governmentally controlled speech.  If Congress passes regulation on the net "in the name of neutrality", it will become a "public utility".  Thanks, but no thanks.  I've seen the FCC at work, and I don't want it on the net. 

Rules define, not create, the market. I agree that the government has a role in ensuring that a market function properly and equitably. Fraud laws are one example. But the market functions the best when government interference is minimal. Is it perfect? No, but free market or capitalism is the best system we have.

My issue with some supporters (Mike at Techdirt for example) of net neutrality legislation is that they support net neutrality as a means of punishing the telcos/cablecos, largely on the lack of competition in some markets and the fact that the telcos/cablecos 'stole' $200 billion on the promise of better broadband service. That is the worst reason to support net neutrality. Two wrongs never ever make a right. 

I've visited savetheinternet.org, and honestly, they offer very little in the way of examples of blatant net neutrality violations. They list four examples, most that could be enforced under existing contract law. If net neutrality is such an important issue, surely there must be some newsworthy examples out there? Ooops, there are none. Why? Because, at the end of the day and despite the rantings of a few CEOs, net neutrality is a sound business decision.

The telcos et al. are writing legislation anyway. Whether it is called an update to the Telco Act from a decade ago or it's called "Net Neutrality"... the telcos will have their way because they pay for the US Congress reelection campaigns.

At least the proposals from what I've seen from a couple of the Dems (e.g. Wyden in OR) are trying to address useful issues and write useful legislation, and that legislation can be evaluated on that basis. Almost everything else is just a give-away.

The government, and by that I mean the people, and by that I mean the techno geeks that are paying any attention to this at all, need to assert the role of the commons in this. (1) Will the Internet in the US be a public commons or not? (2) Will the Internet in the US also provide a public, common mechanism for establishing completely private communication mechanisms as well?

Probably neither will be true in 5 years. 

Comment by James Robertson

Patrick,

TV and Radio are "commons" as the government defines them. I'm not worried about what rev one of neutrality will look like. What bothers me is what will happen once the camel's nose is in the tent. If a telco or a cable company screws with my service, I have some recourse, and enough public pressure can make a difference. With government, that's not going to happen. The "broadcast" channels still have content restrictions, and the rules on what you can and can't say during election season are a feast for lawyers. Once the government defines the net as "commons", then we'll end up with a net FCC "for our own good".

Again, thanks - but no thanks.

...we'll end up with a net FCC

If that's what we'll get with a NN act, then I am with you. However, I am willing to bet large sums that's what we'll end up with that one way or another.

Cable, satellite, airwaves... and the Internet... powerful people who perceive there is something to lose and something to gain will want to control the conversation. No act of congress will forestall it, but some will be willing to try and true freedom-loving patriots will have to try to support one piece of legislation or another.

In other words, there is no such thing as "hands off", laissez faire, "libertarianism". That is an ideal that will never be realized. Policy *will* be shaped one way or another, so better to try shaping it the way you'd like to see it and go down fighting. 

Your argument against NN is well meaning, but misguided.  First, any NN law can be written to give the FCC only the power to oversee NN.  Second, if the FCC tries to overstep its bounds, it can be easily defeated in court, as shown time and time again, most recently with the so-called "broadcast flag."  Third, the horse has already left the barn.  It is Congress, not the FCC that has been trying to regulate the net.  What about the various net decency laws that the courts have struck down?  The Justice Dept. is still trying to revive the last decency law, that is why they requested data from the search companies a few months ago.  Also remember that the FCC regulates cable and satellite services, but because of the way the laws were written, the FCC has little say about content carried on those services.

You have to remember the persective from which a writer comes.

In TBL's case, he comes from a country and--on the whole--a continent where regulation != protection. Just look at the likes of Channel 4, for instance. And if you want to see the kind of things you can get away with here in good and Catholic Ireland, type "Podge and Rodge" into Google. The 'for the children' argument doesn't have anywhere near as much force over in Rightpondia as Leftpondia.

Another part worth making is that markets, despite the beliefs of some, are not perfect. Because they're amoral, they're excellent at allocating private goods, but they're not quite so good at allocating public goods such as, say, the freedom of the market itself. That's why, for example, antitrust and competition laws exist.

But that's not to say that government regulation is always a good thing. It ought to be minimal, but opinions on what constitutes minimal differ. I personally think, at least on this side of the water, the competition statutes are adequate to prevent the potential abuses that the net neutrality people feel are in danger of occurring in the future. Whether this is so for the US, I can't say.

The problem with your argument is that it somehow assumes that bandwidth providers don't already operate under heavy government regulation (and that these same providers don't lobby for regulation any time it serves their interests), and further that Congress doesn't already try to regulate the Internet any time the possibility reveals itself. You're worried about the camel getting its nose into the tent?  The whole camel is already inside the tent.