Net neutrality, part five

5. on doing nothing

5.1. "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" - lack of government regulation made the Internet what it is today

5.1.1. network discrimination is presently more theory than fact

5.1.1.1. "absent clear evidence of market failure or consumer harm, policymakers should not enact blanket prohibitions of particular forms of business conduct or business models or place requirements on how business is conducted" - Federal Trade Commission Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras, August 21, 2006

5.1.1.2. "When we considered this bill in both the subcommittee and in the full committee, we asked experts to identify one example of a problem that this amendment would solve. They couldn't point to one example where a Bell-operated company or a cable company had blocked access to their networks or infringed on so-called Internet freedom." - Congressman Mike Ferguson

5.1.1.3. "I look at it like, this amendment, if it was brought up 100 years ago, would have froze the Pony Express into that permanent state. But yet, we all know that later on developed first class mail, airplane, FedEx, UPS and a variety of different ways to deliver to the consumer. I say, let's wait until there is a discriminatory process that is put in place, that is anti-consumer and trying to guess that something that, we don't know what, may happen in the future. Let's not regulate the Internet today." - Congressman Lee Terry

5.2. net neutrality is bad for consumers

5.2.1. allowing discrimination takes the burden of cost off of consumers

5.2.1.1. net neutrality "is a guarantee that the consumer will be the only one to finance the building, the maintenance and the improvement of the Internet highway." - Congressman Charles Gonzalez

5.2.1.2. "The Markey amendment bans residential Internet providers from charging large Internet content providers for maintenance or upgrades based on how much bandwidth they are using. The Markey amendment means higher praises for the consumers, those of us who pay monthly, while large Internet content providers get a free ride over the portion of the Internet that is the most need for investment. Supporters claim the Internet companies pay for their network. The problem is, with television and video, it requires more bandwidth. They have got to make that investment. Are we going to put it on our constituents individually, or are the people who are making the money going to pay for it?" - Congressman Gene Green

5.2.1.3. "The issue for the future is when websites offer high-bandwidth services like high-definition movies, television, and video games from websites, all over the Internet. To upgrade the ``last mile'' of broadband to accommodate these new services while keeping consumer prices low, telephone and cable companies may need to offer premium service to large Internet content companies. These applications require guaranteed high quality service, something that's not usually available on the Internet today. The Markey amendment bans this commercial arrangement and sends the whole bill to the consumers." - Congressman Gene Green

5.2.1.4. "Now, the underlying purpose of this bill is to get the private entrepreneurs of this country to put the billions and billions and billions of dollars that are necessary to get the broadband deployment into the homes hopefully of every American home in this country, and then use that to unleash the creative entrepreneurship of our creative community to develop new services and new ways of providing those services so that all Americans can have access to some of these new services that are promised " - Congressman Joe Barton

5.3. let the marketplace not Congress decide the winners

5.4. net neutrality is bad for innovation

5.4.1. the internet is already congested and fast lanes are needed

5.4.2. new services require better quality of service

5.4.2.1. "The key question is not whether network neutrality provides substantial benefits… the key regulatory question … [is] whether imposing network neutrality would forestall the realization of important economic benefits"

5.4.2.2. VoIP is particularly vulnerable to QOS issues

5.4.2.2.1. VoIP quality is dropping, net neutrality would make it worse

5.5. supporters of net neutrality are stupid and evil

5.6. network providers deserve to get rich like everyone else

5.6.1. net neutrality will thwart investment

5.6.1.1. "If we want people and entrepreneurs and companies to invest the billions of dollars to get true broadband, then we cannot put restrictions on that in effect are price controls that give people access for free." Steve Forbes

5.6.1.2. "If you don't allow companies to build out with a high probability of a reasonable return, shareholders will punish them for building out." John Chambers, CISCO - USAToday, 7/25/06

5.6.2. content-providers are getting rich

5.6.2.1. "A Verizon Communications Inc. executive yesterday accused Google Inc. of freeloading for gaining access to people's homes using a network of lines and cables the phone company spent billions of dollars to build." Washington Post, 2/7/06

5.6.2.2. "Telco-cable companies have spent billions to lay down broadband pipe and want a return on their investment. They are tired of bandwidth hogs like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft getting a free ride. This was fine when the Internet consisted mostly of e-mail and static Web pages. With the advent of online video, Internet telephony, and IPTV, Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth want content providers to share the cost. Their reasoning: If Google is going to introduce a video service, shouldn't it have to pay for some of the bandwidth it scarfs down?" - Slate

5.7. if the customer doesn't like it, he can choose something else

5.7.1. "Isn't there competition among pipeline owners? Just as a consumer of fast food can go to McDonald's if she wants a Coke and KFC if she wants a Pepsi (Wu's example), can't a consumer go to Comcast, say, rather than Verizon if Comcast offers more information and faster, to boot? If information really does want to be free and fast, won't ISPs have good reasons not to discriminate without being micro-managed and "planned" from above?" - Prawfsblawg

5.8. net neutrality is bad for free speech

5.9. government regulation is bad

5.9.1. who trusts Congress to get it right

5.9.1.1. "Broad regulatory mandates that employ a ‘one size fits all’ philosophy, without regard to specific facts, always have unintended consequences, some of which may be harmful and some of which may not be known until far into the future" - Federal Trade Commission Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras, August 21, 2006

5.9.1.2. "If we go any further toward regulation of the Internet, we risk the grave consequences associated with legislating in the dark." - Senator Demint

5.9.1.3. "It would force companies that build and maintain the networks where the data flows to present and categorize data in packets according to a government standard. Once we have done that, Mr. Chairman, the next thing is going to be having a Secretary of Internet access." - Congressman Marsha Blackburn

5.9.1.4. "It imposes and establishes, secondly, a massive Federal regulation by mandating and dictating conditions on how the Internet will evolve without any consideration for technological advances and emerging business practices and models." - Congressman Charles Gonzalez

5.9.1.5. "Most of us do not fully understand how the Internet works on a detailed basis or the financial arrangements that build our networks. The Internet has thrived without Congressional intervention on prices and commercial arrangements, and it will do so in the future." - Congressman Gene Green

5.9.2. who trusts the FCC to get it right

5.9.2.1. "FCC arbitration of commercial disputes over Internet access may sound better in theory than it turns out to be in practice. There are some fairly close calls to make and when the pen hits the paper, you may not get the answer you are looking for, we may not see the issues the way you do, and you may be worse off than before." W. Kenneth Ferree, FCC, 6/27/03

5.10. technology will overcome discrimination anyway