We were surprised to see TechDirt’s over-the-top reaction to one of our posts this week, “Hands Off the Wireless Spectrum.” If our characterization of their position as “reluctant” was wrong, we apologize. But we have nothing to apologize for in terms of our legitimate and substantive role in this important public policy debate.

Our focus is on the nation’s broadband needs and on the facts. Facts are neither honest nor dishonest — they are the facts — and people can reach their own conclusions over what the facts mean in terms of whether we need new laws on net neutrality. We happen to think we don’t need new laws, because the facts we have been pointing out for some time are these:

• There is no problem to solve. Nobody has shown that there have been any meaningful breaches of basic neutrality on the web. Pro-regulation activists have tried to make case studies out of AOL, Cox and a Canadian telecom firm, and none of those bore out. (This may have something to do with why you never hear about those situations anymore). Broadband providers are committed to a robust, uncensored Internet and also aware of the consumer outcry if they provide anything less.

• Nobody has effectively argued that current laws are insufficient to deal with any possible market abuses that could potentially arise in the future.

• More fathers of the Internet, including Dave Farber and Robert Kahn, have come forward to express their reservations about imposing net neutrality laws than have come forward to support such laws. That is because regulation has the real potential of adverse unintended consequences.

• It is probable and even likely that in the not-too-distant-future, worldwide demand for broadband will exceed existing capacity. A massive new build-out to handle that capacity is needed, and net neutrality would effectively require broadband providers to pass the cost of that build-out on to consumers exclusively.

• The Internet has never been “neutral” in the way that net neutrality activists claim. There is no utopia to return to; the Net has always been a mishmash of “best effort delivery” networks and loose agreements. Having smart networks, which net neutrality regulation would prohibit, will help to rationalize and improve the existing situation.

• In Canada, where a similar debate is occurring, their CTC bureaucracy is so mired in red tape they can’t even remove online death threats against human rights attorney Richard Warman.

• Dorgan-Snowe’s first effect would be to freeze the broadband marketplace exactly where it is, disallowing not just theoretical abuses but new innovations, too.

• The United States ranks 16th worldwide in access to broadband Internet.

• Hands Off the Internet has always endorsed the four principles of net neutrality: Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.” We even took out a print ad last year to say so.

TechDirt, maybe we’re not so different. If we agree that the basic ideas of net neutrality are inoffensive but mandating them into law could be a disastrous move, then there’s more to agree on than disagree

The anti-net neutrality Washington Post op-ed by former FCC advisers Dave Farber and Michael Katz from last week generated considerable buzz in the blogosphere, a great deal of it positive. Here’s a sample:

Richard Bennett, one of our favorite bloggers, says:

Most of the people who’ve made substantial contributions to the Internet in the past are converging on this point of view: it’s harmful to make too many restrictions on the services the network provides to users and applications. Contrast this view, which is empirically provable, with the assertion on the other side that there’s are mystical and unprovable reasons to favor a dearth of network services. The evidence is all on the side of de-regulation.

At Verizon’s Policy Blog Link Hoewing comments:

First, while the debate around net neutrality is centered around possible dangers that could undermine the Internet, the fact is that way the Internet works can be improved and we have see no problems emerge despite the fears that have been expressed.

Second, the Internet is a highly adaptive and competitive environment that has evolved through the investments and ideas of countless players who have been free to try things out. It has grown successfully in the past and there is no good reason to think that it will not do so in the future. Legislating or trying to impose regulations in this environment makes no sense and could do harm.

Here’s Scott Cleland:

Like David and Mike, I am well aware of the potential problems that market power could have. I have a long and public record of standing up to monopoly behavior that I viewed as out of bounds. But I am also a fact and analysis person. The facts and the analysis show this is a competitive marketplace becoming even more competitive in the future.

And Cynthia Brumfield of IP Democracy, always a thoughtful commentator on technoglogy issues, reiterates her position that there’s no compelling need for net neutrality laws:

I’m on the record as saying that net neutrality legislation gives me the willies, and mostly because I don’t trust the government not to screw up what is a very vibrant, yet fragile, marketplace. I agree with Farber, Katz, et. all. that “we should wait until there is a problem before rushing to enact solutions.”

Welcome comments all. Congress should pay careful attention to the experts here, and take the political activists with a grain of salt. Net neutrality ain’t all that and a bag of potato chips. Heck, it’s not even a bag of potato chips.

From today’s Washington Post:

“Unfortunately, congressional initiatives aimed at preserving the best of the old Internet threaten to stifle the emergence of the new one.”Network neutrality is supposed to promote continuing Internet innovation by restricting the ability of network owners to give certain traffic priority based on the content or application being carried or on the sender’s willingness to pay. The problem is that these restrictions would prohibit practices that could increase the value of the Internet for customers.”

Few people understand the Internet better than Carnegie Mellon Prof. and “Godfather of the Internet” David Farber. And Michael Katz was Chief Economist at the FCC during the Clinton Administration.

So when these two team up to tell the world that Net neutrality regulations would hurt efforts to curb “viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks and zombie computers,” prudent lawmakers ought to take notice. The Dynamic Duo point other problems with neutrality regulation:

“When traffic surges beyond the ability of the network to carry it, something is going to be delayed. When choosing what gets delayed, it makes sense to allow a network to favor traffic from, say, a patient’s heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download.”

This op-ed is so good there’s no reason for additional commentary. Check it out.