In the end, the hit parade of hypothetical horrors failed to carry the day. Preemptive regulation is rarely a good idea and as many of the Senators’ statements yesterday showed, neither is a vast new expansion of federal power over the Internet.

So-called Net neutrality may emerge again on the Senate floor – despite the lopsided (and clearly bipartisan) 15-7 final vote. But in the meantime, it’s worth remembering some of the truly independent voices that came out in eloquent opposition to suffocating new regulations on the Internet:

* The 700,000-strong Communications Workers of America spoke on behalf of working families who depend on broadband deployment.

* LULAC, the nation’s leading advocate for Hispanic Americans, warned lawmakers in a June 20th letter that this proposed new regulations were “complex and potentially damaging to the Internet.”

* David Farber, former FCC Chief Technologist, and two former FCC Chief Economists

* Newspaper editorials from The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Oregonian and many others that warned against new Internet regulation.

Thanks for speaking out, folks. Your voices helped carry the day.

If you missed Mike McCurry on Hugh Hewitt’s radio talk show last Monday, you missed out on an interesting conversation touching on several important aspects of the debate over new Internet regulations. Hugh asked some tough questions, and Mike hit the right note on every one. Here’s one good section:

[B]ack in the Clinton years, we opted for a lightly regulated environment in which there would be not any kind of strong federal presence in deciding how the internet would unfold. And I think we made the right choice, because in the 1990’s until now, we’ve seen what’s happened as a result.

But [regulation to outlaw tiered Internet service] would reverse that. This would actually put the federal government and the FCC, for the very first time, in a very heavy regulatory position in deciding how the internet’s going to work in the future. And we just think that’s wrong. Net neutrality equals net regulation. That’s the bottom line.

Luckily, the entire segment is available online, so if you want to hear the whole thing, click here.

Download pdf

[Update: Boy, what timing — the Snowe-Dorgan amendment failed on an 11-11 tie in committee just now. This is great news, but it’s not over yet.]

Senator Olympia Snowe is one of three senators proposing to add so-called “neutrality” language to the upcoming Senate telecommunications bill. We recently went back and looked up her floor statement introducing her amendment in late May. And what we found only confirmed our suspicions that even the leading proponents of so-called “neutrality” laws don’t have a very firm grasp on what they’re proposing.

Part of her reasoning for introducing the amendment was:

“Because anyone, anywhere, can communicate with and transact business with virtually any other corner of the globe with an Internet connection, the benefits of the Internet on small business – and on rural places like my home State of Maine – cannot be overstated.”

We certainly agree with the substance of her statement. But we argue that her amendment would actually have the opposite effect. As we wrote here recently, new Internet regulations would have the effect of making it more difficult to deliver what’s called “last-mile” broadband service – that is, high-speed service up to each and every home. It costs a pretty penny to do this, and Senator Snowe’s proposal would put undue burdens on all parties involved.

She went on to say that in the 1990s, the Internet:

“…became a robust engine of economic development by enabling anyone with a good idea to connect to consumers and compete on a level playing field for consumers’ business. Anyone can send an e-mail or set up a Web site at little or no cost, and the marketplace has picked winners and losers, rather than an arbitrary gatekeeper.”

All of which sounds nice. But just because everyone had the same slow Internet speed did not mean that everyone was on the same playing field. Some companies and some individuals had more money to buy more access. It was true then, and it is true now. That’s just the nature of the market – and yet the Internet has still thrived, especially as the telecom industry delivered better and better broadband Internet access.

Which brings us to our real problem with her bill: Senator Snowe frets about individual companies having too much power to “pick winners and losers.” Because so-called “neutrality” laws would mandate that all packets move with exactly the same (lack of) care, what we are more concerned about is that government will step in and decide that everyone will be losers.

John Dvorak over at MarketWatch has an interesting take on the so-called Net neutrality issue:

We as a nation are, in fact, lagging much of the world in both broadband penetration and access speed. At some point our competitiveness on a global basis will be affected by our failure to keep up with these technologies despite the fact that they were invented by us.

Except in totalitarian regimes where the Net is out-and-out censored, nobody else has this issue on the platter. They are too busy using the Net to its fullest.

Dvorak actually hits on the same key issue as the Communications Workers of America did when it came out opposing this new federal mandate. Although these two are hardly soulmates (politically or in their economic outlooks), it says something that they both cut through the NN fog to see the real issue.

The Pew Research Center recently issued a fascinating multi-part report on broadband use in the United States. You can find all of the documents at their site. But we were most interested in their report about broadband access across the country. Pew demonstrates, just “24% of rural Americans have high-speed internet connections,” a double-digit difference from their urban counterparts. If you live in a city or close-in suburb, this may be news to you. But if you’re one of the millions of Americans who does live in a rural area, you’re probably all too aware.

The telecom industry has been working hard to bring high-speed Internet access to the small towns of America, but so-called Internet “neutrality” laws would shackle telecom firms, potentially drying up outside investment. In Washington DC, the Silicon Valley and other areas that already have *their* broadband Internet, some are trying to convince Congress the US needs these laws. As we have argued since the beginning, clearly, we don’t. But more than that, they would be a disaster for millions of Americans. The Senate should keep this in mind as it considers making any changes to US telecommunications laws.

NYU law professor Kim Taipale recently wrote a brief paper for the Center for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology Policy explaining why “neutrality” regulations would result in “skewed incentives and no capability to prioritize critical services in times of national emergency.” It’s a bit on the technical side, but here’s the crux:

“Regardless of which side of this debate one takes, the simple fact is that as more bandwidth-intensive applications come online and demand for such services increases, bandwidth constraints will emerge and network congestion will become a significant issue for everybody.”

By some estimates, more than eighty percent of email traffic today is spam. It won’t be long before high bandwidth consuming video spam will be competing for available network capacity with mission-critical or life-saving data. For example, doctors are experimenting with using remote video feeds and robotic surgical tools to operate at a distance - why prohibit telemedicine application providers from purchasing priority in the network over the latest annoying antihistamine ad?

To our knowledge this is the first time someone has pointed out just how exceedingly dangerous these misguided so-called Net neutrality proposals would be. Having seen what havoc Mother Nature can wreak, we would be foolish to do anything that hinders our responses. As the Senate considers the upcoming telecom bill, it should think about this very carefully.

Add the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) to the list of independent groups puncturing holes in the logic of so-called Net neutrality. LULAC’s June 20th letter to all 100 Senators doesn’t mince words:

“LULAC does not support preemptive action on net neutrality and we do not believe the Internet should be subjected to increased and misguided regulations. It would be most unfortunate if important legislation [to update cable TV regulations] that could prove beneficial to so many consumers is delayed because of this issue.”

LULAC is one of the leading progressive advocacy groups in the nation and its interest in this issue is clear:

“Latinos are increasingly reliant on advanced communication technologies to further their education and careers, grow their businesses, and communicate with family and friends both near and far.”

So add LULAC to the list of voices opposing, what they call in their own words, a “solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”