Yesterday Salon.com posted an article about the ongoing net neutrality fight. While there was some to like about the piece, we were concerned that some of it gave readers the wrong impression. So here we present the letter we had posted at their site yesterday:

We are pleased that Salon points out that the United States lags in broadband access and that telecom companies are working hard to bring high-speed Internet to all Americans. However, Daniel Reilly’s article “The telecom slayers” perpetuates several misconceptions about the current debate.

Foremost among them is the assertion that online media companies “will be forced to pay the lion’s share of fees” is inaccurate and misleading. No one is forced to pay for tiered Internet service, and as a substantively different offering from standard non-tiered access, it’s only fair. Meanwhile, Google is asking the government to give them this service for free, and if they succeed, it’s the average Internet user who will pay the price.

Moreover, the idea that creating such a fast lane for “will stifle innovation and choice” is ludicrous. In fact, the opposite is true — packet prioritization means that high-quality, streaming online video service is a real possibility. It isn’t now (http://www.slate.com/id/2140930/). And Sen. Snowe’s comparison of a free market to a “Soviet Union supermarket” only underscores how little she knows about the broadband market.

Ultimately, organizations like Save The Internet have confused citizens by conflating the separate issues of content discrimination and traffic-shaping. The telecommunications industry has no interest in the former, while the latter is a necessary tool for keeping Internet traffic manageable.

We admire the initiative of the video-maker Ben Going, but that doesn’t make his argument correct. Indeed, his video is actually free of any arguments. Style over substance may play well in Hollywood, but when far-reaching new government regulations are on the horizon, facts matter more than emotion.