A striking aspect of the neutrality debate is the amount heat being generated in light of the generally non-existent controversies sparking them. Proponents of more regulation, by their own admission, don’t have much in the way of specific examples to bolster their case that telecoms are out to get anyone.

Take a look at the examples listed on the Save The Internet website. They cite four examples to “prove” that federal neutrality regulations are necessary. But two of those four didn’t even take place in the U.S. — they’re from Canada! For those who may not know, Canada is a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, and even though it supplies an apparent majority of the United States’ most successful comedians, it is not, in fact, a U.S state. What we mean is, Canada has a different regulatory scheme than our own, and there are too many differences to make a fair comparison.

But the other examples are equally specious — a third involves an issue that is more of a trademark issue than one indicating a need for federal Internet regulations. An organization used the trademarked name of AOL in order to promote itself, DearAOL.com. AOL objected on grounds of consumer confusion. Guess what? DearAOL is still coming through loud and clear.

The fourth example did involve a small DSL provider that interfered with an unaffiliated VOIP provider. But nowhere on Save the Internet do they mention that there was swift federal action that put an end to this practice — and sent a strong pro-consumer warning shot to every other broadband provider. Not to mention, this situation is the exception that proves the rule — Internet providers as a rule are not in the business of limiting what you or anyone else sends over the pipes.

Funny thing – that was two years ago and no one’s tried anything similar since then. But you’ll never hear that from our friends at Save The Internet.

While the HandsOff blog just got under way last week, we must point out that we are far from the first blogger to stand up to the pro-regulation faction and ask some pretty interesting questions about what the activists are really leading us toward.

Maybe the most dedicated net neutrality critic is Richard Bennett, a guy who was blogging before there was a blogosphere. He’s a bit more irreverent than we are, but he knows technology as well as anyone else, and probably a lot better than most of the people at Save The Internet.

Last month he took a well-aimed shot at Save The Internet for claiming that 1,500 blogs had taken up their cause in the first couple days that their site was online, based solely on who had linked to them:

But this blog has linked to them, and I don’t support their goals, and neither do the other blogs I’ve cited on this subject. In fact, a scan of the blogs that have been discussing this issue will show you that technical bloggers and free marketeers almost universally oppose the “net neutering” legislation proposed by Google’s coalition, while support is mainly concentrated in left wing blogs who actually are pushing for a government-funded and government-controlled Internet (but not exclusively; some right wing blogs run by people who don’t have technical knowledge — such as the Instapundit — have joined the fray on the wrong side.)

Another who gets it is Matt S., who likes to think of himself as the only Republican in San Francisco. Early in this debate he made one of the sharpest observations yet:

While ‘neutrality’ sounds benign, the proposed legislation would give the FCC powers that it currently does not have. Be clear, there is no neutrality legislation in place and we are doing just fine.

More importantly, from a technical and economic perspective, I am inspired by innovation and experimentation and the free markets which enable them. A neutrality mandate would give the federal gov’t regulatory powers to decide right and wrong at the router level.

You should not be surprised that the loudest advocates of ‘net neutrality’ are those on the far left, including MyDD, and MoveOn. Their arguments are very much in line with things like McCain-Feingold and the old Fairness Doctrine.

Maybe the most surprising critic of net neutrality is a Daily Kos diarist and blogger who goes by the nom de blog Mumon, and even challenged his fellow Kos contributors on the subject. He probably doesn’t agree with us on everything, but he also has the network infrastructure know-how to know “net neutrality” isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be:

Like it or not, some folks will fly first class, and like it or not, many more folks will fly coach. The trick for providers is to make first class cheaper than the competition. (That’s not trivial, and it’s a profoundly interesting problem that I didn’t know how to solve 12 years ago.) … The real issue for “net neutrality” is that an advanced internet needs to be built, financed, and initiated through the government help, like it is in Korea, Japan, and China. That’s why our access charges are so steep relative to these places. Put big pipes everywhere, and the high class QoS services can easily coexist with the best effort folks.

Save The Internet likes to claim that it is the true grassroots effort, but they have their backers in DC and elsewhere as well. They call us “astroturf,” even though we’ve never hidden who we represent. Well, there are a few “little guys” who see through the net neutrality hype.

And these bloggers mentioned here are far from the only skeptics on the Internet, and we thank them for their effort. And as they blog more, we’ll keep pointing out their invaluable work.

Download pdf

Download pdf

The Communications Workers of America represents 700,000+ union men and women at the nation’s cable, phone and wireless companies. These include engineers, field technicians, and others who know a heck of a lot about our telecom systems.

That’s why you ought to read a letter referenced in today’s Communications Daily (alas, no link available). Writing to House Judiciary Committee members, who are holding hearings today on regulating Net “neutrality,” CWA’s president Larry Cohen shoots down the idea that consumers will benefit from vast new federal regulations:

“The proposed net neutrality bill will result in the unintended consequence of delayed deployment of high-speed networks, with particularly negative impact on underserved communities.”

He goes on to say that if this neutrality regulation bill passes Congress, the U.S. “will fall even further behind the rest of the world [in broadband deployment], and our rural and low-income populations will wait even longer to enter the digital age.”

In addition to being required reading for every Member of Congress, this letter is a compelling rebuttal of the pro-regulation forces by those on the front lines (literally, the trenches) of our communications system.

One of the genuinely puzzling things about having the Feds regulate Internet “neutrality” is the total lack of attention to how this would be implemented. Remember Will Rogers‘ advice about the problem of German submarines during World War I: “Just bring the oceans to a boil. I’ll leave the details to the technicians.” That’s basically what Net neutrality regulations are all about.

Few areas are as regulated and litigated as our communications system. Lawsuits are as common as ’60s reruns on TVLand. And what does the “neutrality regulation” team have to say about this? The inevitable cascade of private litigation (and can anyone seriously argue that there won’t be?) will add a whole new level of cost to our Internet usage. The users will pay, and they’ll find the cure is far worse than the disease.

In fact, the would-be reformers can’t even name the disease. At the recent Personal Democracy Forum in New York, Timothy Karr and Susan Crawford failed to articulate what would actually happen if the laws they back are not passed. Of course, when pressed, many will name the disease: business, capitalism, the free market. And it’s a shame the online content providers are pursuing these arguments.

A recent report by Forrester, the industry-leading research firm, put it best: “Legal costs will shoot through the roof — draining the pockets of everyone involved.” And this is the nirvana the regulated neutrality is supposed to bring us?

By Mike McCurry and Chris Wolf

The online debate over ‘net neutrality’ has to date been dominated by the proponents of far-reaching new laws. We think it’s about time the other side is heard. We look forward to discussing many issues surrounding the telecom industry, and preserving the exciting future of broadband Internet against potential regulatory legislation which might threaten it. Over the coming weeks and months, we’ll explore the different sides of this debate and put it into the proper context.

So far, too many groups and individuals have painted this debate as a case of the telecom industry vs. the little guy. But that’s not what this is about at all. This is about how we’re going to pay for the next generation Internet, and creating different ways to deliver web content to the home as fast as possible. This is also about whether we want the government to dictate how the next version of the Internet is run before we even get there.

Those who style themselves defenders of ‘net neutrality’ may not realize it, but they’re actually throwing the brakes on the development of the Internet. But the Internet needs freedom to develop, and laws that pretend to understand what the Internet will be like in five or ten years not only seek to answer a problem that doesn’t exist, but may even derail much-needed investment and innovation.

We need the freedom to figure out the answers to numerous questions: Who will pay for the pipes that will deliver the next generation Internet? What is the best way to ensure packets of information get across the Internet in the most efficient manner possible? How will traffic be managed when 100 million movies are being downloaded at any given moment?

These are complex questions, and over the coming months, we will do our level best to explain not just why the Save The Internet crowd is wrong, but where their online supporters have their wires (or these days, their wireless) crossed. And that’s why we’ve set up shop here in the blogosphere.

We’ll drop in from time to time, but for now we’ll turn this over to the Hands Off the Internet team, who will keep this blog updated and alive, hopefully even lively.

Download pdf