When you hear the Net Neutrality folks claim that America is lagging the world in broadband adoption, remember this.

So what’s driving America’s progress in broadband deployment? For starters, the continued flood of broadband investment ($24 billion this year alone, according to the TIA) and the rapid deployment of “smart” networking technology are obviously having an impact.

Equally important, look at one of the key issues driving this investment: federal regulations don’t hamstring emerging technology. But with Net neutrality undermining that restraint, it also threatens the country’s progress in deploying affordable new broadband.

Yes, there’s much more to be done but as the Insead report shows, a light touch regulation is one of the factors that can help keep us on the right track

At a Congressional hearing on Net Neutrality back in 2006, proponents couldn’t get their answers straight when asked to define the concept. Two years later, evidently not much has changed:

Jonathan Rintels writes this week at SaveTheInternet that Net Neutrality is “a requirement that broadband Internet consumers be permitted to access the lawful content of their choice.” We agree. But if that’s the definition, then this Net Neutrality fight is over since consumers already have that right.

Google blogged a different approach recently, saying that prioritizing some types of traffic over others is completely consistent with Net Neutrality – a comment at odds with the “all data is equal” crowd. Though it’s correct about that, Google’s problem is its position that Net users, not the company, should pick up the tab for the new pipes that need to be built to handle its video content.

Then there’s Net Neutrality advocate Susan Crawford, who testified on the Hill last week. She’s argued that content-based regulation couldn’t be done without “a heavy handed regulator.” (She’s right.) So that’s why Net Neutrality requires government policies “separating transport from other activities, and separating access from backbone and backhaul transport….”

Net Neutrality advocates can help clear up the confusion by acknowledging at least this: Writing the regulations that would govern how data traffic travels across the Internet will give an army of Washington lawyers and lobbyists a lifetime guarantee of full employment.

Chalk one up for common sense.

At last week’s Internet Video Policy Symposium in DC, Cowen & Co.’s Arnie Berman offered a sharp response to the claim that Net Neutrality would put a “toll booth” on the Internet. According to press reports, Berman noted that video data on the web is like a bus that’s three lanes wide. So to handle all this traffic – and remember that last December, 140+ million U.S. Internet users watched more than 10 billion online videos – you’d need highways that are 30 lanes wide.

Earth to Google: Care to explain how Net Neutrality helps us fund all that?

Following the FCC gathering in Cambridge on Monday to conduct a hearing on network management practices, we wanted to share a great piece that ran in the Boston Globe late last year. Elaine Kamarck of Harvard University made some very important points that are worth remembering.

If you did any of those things, you are part of the new world of the Internet, a world where video is rapidly becoming the most popular thing we do online. But video takes up a lot of space, a lot more than text, and the increased use of video means that the Internet is fast filling up. The result is that if we don’t invest soon, we could be seeing, in the near future, the Internet equivalent of an early evening traffic jam on Interstate 93. It could take forever for your photos or video to download or for your e-mail to arrive.

The backbone of the Internet will need to grow. For instance, more fiber optic cable will need to be laid, and that’s not cheap. In the past the big telephone companies have laid necessary cable, and they are the ones best situated to do it again…….

It will be difficult to get phone companies to charge the prices necessary to pay for new investments in Internet infrastructure. No one can make them do so, for the Internet is not regulated. But industry will need to take into account the public interest.

We need to start thinking about a variety of options. Perhaps we should look at different pricing structures for different online activities or require the use of “smart” networks that give lower priority to entertainment-related data than to packets of data in areas like telemedicine. Many Internet activities are in the broad public interest. We need to make sure those aren’t hampered because, somewhere in the world, teenagers are playing online games or grandmas are staring at their children’s babies.

It’s been widely reported that Chairman Edward Markey and Rep. Charles “Chip” Pickering have introduced a bill which includes a requirement that the Federal Communications Commission study how broadband providers are coping with the exploding growth of data sent over their networks. The FCC would also have to hold eight conferences to assess broadband service competition.

We have a great respect for Chairman Markey and we’re certainly pleased that today’s bill doesn’t try to revive what Congress decisively rejected two years ago — government Internet regulation. Regarding the study specifically, there’s no question that a reasoned examination of the facts will demonstrate the folly of net neutrality. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently examined the issues that the Markey bill proposes be studied. Neither study found evidence of any problem warranting regulation. Both agencies have also clearly affirmed their ability to monitor and deal with any problems that may arise.

On its face we agree with the concept; Hands Off the Internet has always supported efforts to gather public opinion. However, we are concerned that an effort to seek public input is intended to be a stalking horse for federal Internet regulation. The continued push by special interests to regulate Internet neutrality undercuts the best hope Net users have for faster, more affordable broadband. Network innovation and deployment free from federal regulation are the keys to meet consumers’ rapidly growing bandwidth demands. More importantly efforts behind Net Neutrality regulations will create uncertainty for investors and internet service providers that must build the infrastructure to meet consumer demands.

Consumers cannot afford the cost or delays created by Net Neutrality; now is the time to clear the way for investment and innovation. Vigorous competition, not net neutrality bills and arbitrary decisions by lawyers and bureaucrats, is the best way to guarantee that open, affordable Internet.

Funny how facts have a way of intruding on the rationale for net neutrality.

Last week, a report from a noted net neutrality proponent at the University of Minnesota suggested that online data growth was not as fast as thought. Therefore, he claimed, net neutrality was necessary to spur additional use.

Yet by week’s end, this announcement from NBC provided fresh evidence that, far from moderating, the growth of data-heavy consumer choices online is accelerating.

NBC announced that it would soon allow users to download – not just stream – favorite programs. What’s the difference? Well, let the numbers tell the story:

According to figures provided by the British-based Broadband Stakeholder Group, a typical standard definition television (SDTV) stream at 30fps requires 3.75 megabits per second. As that’s still above the bandwidth limit of some broadband systems, consumer usage has been limited.

But once you switch from streaming to downloads, this problem goes away so the potential number of viewers increases considerably. (Smart move, NBC. Let’s see how long it takes other networks to follow suit.)

To give you an idea of the data involved, a single half-hour sitcom download can be over 420 MBs, assuming 2 channels, a 1.33:1 aspect ratio and bitrate of 2500 kbps.

And you’ll have to download about 840 MBs just to watch George Takei in “Heroes” tell Masi Oka that he’s Oka’s father. Oh my!

As with the networks rush to stream shows back in 2006, other stations will quickly join NBC in offering downloads. It’s inevitable. Good for them and consumers will be the ultimate beneficiaries.

So don’t believe that web growth is moderating. Not by a long shot.

William Taylor, chair of the communications practice at NERA Consulting in Boston and former MIT professor, has just published this concise economic analysis of the Internet and the likely impact of net neutrality.

His report effectively debunks the idea that innovation would suffer if broadband carriers offer different choices in download speeds. Indeed, precisely the opposite would occur, he concludes, noting:

“[A]dvocating regulation to preserve Internet freedoms is inherently inconsistent.

“Indeed, if priority prices reflected the costs of priority as well as consumers’ valuations of the applications that depend on priority, one would expect more valuable innovation in a market-determined network architecture rather than less.”

Equally helpful, Dr. Taylor offers a timely reminder of how government regulation of service quality in another commercial venture – the airlines – devolved into comic absurdity. That included:

“…prescribing the maximum amount of leg-room, requiring that meals be limited to sandwiches, and establishing uniform additional prices for in-flight entertainment.”

This natural mission creep of regulation is exactly what has so many supporters of a vibrant Internet opposed to the calls for net neutrality.

This is a good study and a breath of fresh air for the net neutrality debate.