Redstate

By Tennyson Posted in User Blogs — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The logic of the Net Neutrality issue is that content providers or information/web service providers should not be charged different rates based on their scale. Under current law, the ability to price service from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) differently to specific companies is highly dubious. What is the concern of some, however, is that Telecoms who also market content (think Comcast's On Demand capability in most major markets) will reserve insufficient bandwidth or price certain scales of bandwidth or services at rates that are too high for most content/web service providers.

Vint Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist for Google, puts it this way:

My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity. Allowing broadband providers to segment their IP offerings and reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need.

The rest can be found here.

It sounds like a clear matter of having a level playing field, right?

A lot of irony lies beneath the surface, however, when the argument is put into perspective and you take notice of who is backing this issue and why. Specifically, how is pricing according to tiers of service not a kind of progressive taxation? What is wrong with making Google pay their "fair share" to those on whose back they have made their money - the ISPs?The issue as told by Google is about fairness. Many other personalities have come out in favor of the issue - including Glen Reynolds. As for groups, it has mustered a team that somehow unites the Christian Coalition, Gun Owners of America, and MoveOn.org. Everybody seems to be against censorship of online content right?

Surprisingly, a review of the supporters vs. opposition in the U.S. Senate reveals a strikingly partisan dispersal.

On the primary rally point online, the SaveTheInternet.com blog, both Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. John Kerry are highlighted. Why is an issue so simple on the surface turning into such a partisan one?

Well, here is the answer. It's about money not censorship. And its about money that powers activism more than lobbying money. The telecom's lobbying is one that, like most industries, traditionally plays both sides. The new online media, exemplified by Google, does not.

In truth, there are anti-trust and other legal remedies for anti-competitive discrimination that the market won't sort out. If censorship was the issue, that could likely generate full bi-partisan support. That is not what is at stake however. What is at stake is that the content and web services business are making a killing in earnings by relying on cheap, available bandwidth that is the same cost to them as it is to your and me. Actually, this isn't really accurate - it is a lot cheaper for them in bulk than it is for our DSL/Cable access. This doesn't make the providers very happy. They want those really rich (i.e. Google, Yahoo, etc.) to compensate them proportionate to their total "assets" - in terms of users and usage. Basically, Telecom wants the right to progressively "tax" services like Google. After all, Google can always buy their own pipes and equipment if they don't want to pay. According to many reports, they already are.

Now this is the irony, these same leftists (by their donations and statements) that would likely crow on and on about "the rich paying their fair share" are lining up to have the Congress forbid Telecom for using anything but a "flat tax" on their services. There are no "income brackets" allowed on the Internet according to Google and John Kerry.

So... there you have it. Net Neutrality is actually a huge "tax break for the rich" - particularly the rich in Silicon Valley and San Francisco that give 98% of their money to Democrats. The reason for all of the sanguine pleas from the Democratic politicians is to jockey for position in the Google hand-out line for 2006 and 2008.

So, do you side with "Big Internet" in favor of price controls? Do you really think that companies like TimeWarner, Comcast, and BellSouth could really censor content based on political/ideological bias and get away with it? I doubt that would survive litigation.

Besides, we already know that Google does.

Ironically, I find myself siding against Net Neutrality despite the clear analogy beween Net Neutrality and the Flat Tax. While I have no love of Telecom or TimeWarner, I'd rather have the market decide and not be manipulated into setting up a multi-billion dollar giveaway to Google, Yahoo, Craigslist, or other Big Internet concerns. What we should be more concerned about is a handful of very large companies with very active political agendas getting all of our data on their grids and brokering what is true or not to the rest of the world. If one of those rises to pseudo-monopoly level, then we are in real trouble and will end up with a form of "Digital Communism" where the Internet once was.

This is not about equality or censorship, it is about power for the Big Internet. And I don't trust those guys with more money and power. Neither should you