Redstate

And while also noting that, generally, I'm all about charging the ISP users more, instead of charging an additional (passed-on) fee to the data sources, and keeping in mind that Stoller is a notorious thicky, it's not quite so simple in this limited case. VoIP is increasingly subject to the same regulatory scheme that governs your telephone; this is one of the internet service sector's rare intersections with a utility whose regulation may or may not be ideal, but the constitutionality of whose regulation is not really ever in doubt.

This confusing paragraph was brought to you today by the Letter A; the Number 6; and by not nearly enough sleep.

I recently met Matt at a George Washington forum on net neutrality, and came away with the view that net neutrality is a more of a means than an end for Matt. As Chairman of Netcompetition.org I couldn't disagree more with his hyper-regulatory stance on net neutrality. However, I think his views are all about regime change and that fear-mongering on net neutrality is a great way to inflame his base and attract attention and funds to the Democratic effort to retake Congress.

I think the liberal blogging community has made themselves out to be bigger than life on this issue. However, I predict they will be sorely disappointed when this isssue does not move the needle for them in November.

You're right: I do find it hard to understand what you're trying to say here.

Am I right to summarize by saying that while you agree that the problem here isn't 'net neutrality', that there are going to be ways for the government to intervene in the specific case of internet phone service quality?

What I mean is this:

I happen to be a bit of a fan of net neutrality, for policy reasons, and intensely selfish ones, not least of which being I don't look forward to the day RedState is required to pay extra to load relatively quickly on the largest networks. I'm much more comfortable paying for tiered service.

I am, however, highly sympathetic to the idea that of all the things that government should do, market regulation is among the last.

However, on the gripping hand, government tends to get edgiest about letting its hand out of communication, for a host of very good and very bad reasons, and regulation of telephone service is a very, very old custom. This is not, in other words, like regulating whether Comcast can charge Origin for Comcast customers downloading Wing Commander: Prophecy II (we can dream!). This goes to one of those things in which government has a legitimate interest, and has a keen hand to regulate -- telephone communication, even if over the Net. Fighting this aspect of government regulation is a bad idea.

So: Sorta.

Stoller, however, is still a thickie.

I think you're probably right, that rabid regulators will pounce on a phone service more readily than anything else.

That suggests to me that it's a big problem for supporters of market-repairing neutrality laws, if the lefties are waving this around too much.

Overzealous regulators could do a lot of damage in the Internet if the Stollers out there draw too much attention.

thanks,

I would actually prefer a competitive market for broadband providers rather than a regulatory solution.  The telcos and cable companies though enjoy their government-protected oligopolistic status.

But if you're going to oppose ISPs being able to charge money for higher QoS, in order to reliable support services more bandwidth-intensive than webpage downloads, then I don't see how the market is going to function.

However, I think his views are all about regime change and that fear-mongering on net neutrality is a great way to inflame his base and attract attention and funds to the Democratic effort to retake Congress.

Scott,

You are an excellent spokesman for your side, but you are a terrible mindreader.  It's not a partisan issue, though my contacts are pretty much on the D side so that's what I work with.

I would much prefer a free market in communications services.  Unfortunately, we don't have one, mostly because of the lobbying efforts of your clients.

Anyway, I'm an easy bogeyman around these parts, I'm sure, but I hope Redstate readers aren't fooled by your assertions about me with regards to this issue.  

How this is net-neutrality at all. Sounds to me like the guy just doesn't know what net-neutrality is all about. We already have tiered service... there's no way that is going to go away.

Matt,

It will be hard for you to remake yourself as a free-marketeer if you make statements like you did at the recent bloggers convention when you pretty clearly stated that corporations "were bad people".

Let the blogosphere judge for themselves by listening to your anti-corporate and partisan rants on this recent video clip...

Let's go to the video tape.

I also blogged on this previously my blog.

Finally, Matt we do have a competitive market; is it perfect? No way. But it is vastly superior to killing off competition with heavy-handed BIG Government regulation that would ensure competition would not work. Your position would be perversely self-fulfilling.