The Economist had a piece yesterday called “The Future of the Internet: A virtual counter-revolution.”  It twists and turns through the ways that government and businesses are attempting to “balkanize” the Internet; to take it over and turn it into a “collection of proprietary islands accessed by devices controlled remotely by their vendors.”  The piece is certainly worth a read, but even if the picture it portrays is accurate, that doesn’t mean it’s not a good thing for consumers and the future of the Internet.

First, it points out how “governments are increasingly reasserting their sovereignty.”  China is blocking content; India and Saudi Arabia threatened to block BlackBerry and other services; the U.S. is pushing regulations for Net Neutrality that could lead to government enforcement of price control, access, and more, eventually turning the Internet into a virtual public utility.

Most disconcerting was where it highlighted United States government’s influence online.  According to The Economist piece, the U.S. ranked 4th amongst countries requesting that Google remove content from their website (roughly 125 times in the second half of last year).  Ironic that it came from the same government that wants to enact Net Neutrality regulations to supposedly preserve the current open nature and free flow of information online.  Worse, the U.S. government ranked second in requests for information from Google, 3,580 in the second half of 2009.  Again, from the same government that wants to establish a “Do Not Track” list for “helping” consumers control online privacy.

The government’s actions raise enormous red flags for privacy and 4th Amendment violations.  That’s why ATR is a member of the Digital Due Process coalition to require federal agencies to have a warrant and a target before asking, for example, Google for all Gmail emails sent between 2:00 and 3:00 pm EST yesterday.  Today, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (enacted way back in 1986) is woefully out of date, and permits the FBI and others to do exactly that.  How are we supposed to trust a government that installs “strip-search” machines at airports, or President Obama who has been pushing for his own form of “online warrantless wiretapping” of late?  (Coincidentally, you can visit another section of The Economist’s website to discuss and vote “no” on government regulation of online privacy alongside Cato’s Jim Harper).

Where the Economist piece goes awry is when it looks at how businesses are using the Internet.  It says that if large players on the Internet move away from an open platform (where services, applications, and devices don’t construct walls against others), “this would be bad news.”  But this is an oversimplification and allowing the free market to offer both open and closed systems means greater consumer choice, innovation, and competition.  Mozilla Firefox vs. Apple’s Safari.  Android vs. iPhone’s iOS.

The Internet is an innovative and dynamic space.  Right now consumers are testing out both “open” and “closed” systems.  This is a decidedly good thing.  Facebook reached 500 million users this month, and its “closed” nature is probably why consumers put it in high demand.  iPhone’s closed operating system has qualities consumers demand just as much as the open Andriod operating system.  The Economist wrongly eulogizes Harvard professor Jonathan Zittrain for his concept of “generativity,” which values a system where anyone can create content anywhere.  Zittrain and The Economist lament that the entire Internet is not “generative”.  But this is an absurd extreme of openness that ignores consumer preferences, like the way Apple restricts a small number of applications in its App Store for safety and reliability reasons.

The Economist also says Net Neutrality is a means to preserve openness, though the piece fairly outlines its many cons.  Without Net Neutrality, proponents of government regulation argue Internet service providers will create a closed Internet by blocking content or permitting some websites to ride on a “fast-lane” above others.  However, this, too, should be decided by consumer choice in the free market, not by prescriptive rules from the FCC that mandate extremely “open” business models.  Consumer preferences in the free-market alone have long ensured that ISPs do not block websites.  Additionally, prioritizing traffic helps prevent congestion, and the model of offering paid fast lanes is utlized by mostly “open” companies like Google to ensure their service is fast enough for consumers in places far from their servers.  Finally, paid prioritization would provide a new revenue source for ISPs to lower prices and invest in broadband expansion, speed, and other services – something that can be very good for consumers.  Net Neutrality and the FCC’s lingering attempt at broadband reclassification could take all these potential benefits away.

Only government can seal off portions of the Internet outright.  Businesses cannot.  When companies choose to build islands in the online world, they do so knowing consumers will value their service, for or in spite of this reason.  The same applies to companies that choose to have their products or services interconnect to all others.  At the end of the day, some balkanization of the Internet gives consumers and businesses the most choice and opportunity compared to an only open or only closed Internet.  And this competition is a good thing.

By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post

A resolution of a contentious battle over so-called net neutrality rules has been postponed until after November elections, when it could be even harder for the Federal Communications Commission to push through its controversial proposal, analysts said.

That’s good news for telecommunications and cable companies, which have been loath for such rules. And it effectively helps FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski avoid regulation that has attracted strong criticism by some lawmakers from both sides of the aisle.

Wednesday, the chairman of the FCC called for nearly two months more time for the public to comment on his policy proposal introduced one year ago that would require network operators such AT&T, Verizon and Comcast to treat all data and applications running on their networks equally. He specifically asked for more feedback on whether such rules should apply to the wireless industry. He also called for more input on how rules on how network operators manage the traffic could allow for some paid prioritization of certain information.

“As we have seen, the issues are complex, and the details matter,” Genachowski said in a statement.

Communications and Internet companies had been watching for a vote on Genachowski’s net neutrality proposal at the agency’s meeting on Sept. 23. While the move was not unexpected, it puts the politically sensitive issue of net neutrality on hold until around December, analysts said.

That, some analysts said, could derail Genachowski’s open Internet goals. And it would make the chairman’s proposal to re-regulate broadband as telecommunications service with stricter rules much harder to pursue.

“Likely Republican gains in the November elections – perhaps including control of the House – will make the political environment somewhat less hospitable for the FCC to reclassify broadband after November,” wrote Concept Capital research analyst Paul Gallant in a note to investors.

The FCC chairman first introduced the policy proposal one year ago in his first major act as head of the agency. His policy push – one supported by President Obama – has been attacked by lawmakers, some Wall Street investors and communications service providers who say rules on how Internet data is managed could hinder the businesses of Internet service providers such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon who want to experiment with new service offerings such as HD video and other services that would require more bandwidth and faster download speeds over other traffic.

When asked if the announcement for more comments was a tactic to delay the controversial vote, a senior FCC official wrote in an e-mail:

“All options remain on the table. The FCC staff is busy reviewing and analyzing an extensive record of more than 50,000 comments in the broadband framework proceeding, which only closed a few weeks ago. Securing a solid legal foundation for broadband policy is too important an issue to rush,” the official said.

Senior FCC official had been trying to broker a private sector agreement between communications and Internet companies on net neutrality. Google and Verizon in August announced their own compromise on the issue, that would make no new rules apply to the wireless industry and allow for some prioritization of data.

The FCC, in its Wednesday announcement, laid out several options on open-Internet policies that could be attractive for telecom and cable operators, analysts said.

The agency suggested that several competing wireless applications could allay concerns that there aren’t enough options for consumers among wireless service providers. It also referenced AT&T and Cricket’s recent proposals for tiered pricing – charges based on usage – as an example of how to solve capacity issues through business solutions.

“This confirms our view that the agency is likely to give the carriers, or at least wireless operators, lots of running room on experimenting with capacity and other price tiering, so long as some protectionis to avoid consumer sticker shock are built in,” said Rebecca Arbogast, an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus.

]]> http://www.internetfreedomcoalition.com/?feed=rss2&p=1133 0 http://www.internetfreedomcoalition.com/?p=1133 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/InternetFreedomCoalition/~3/TyYL-ebhP9U/ http://www.internetfreedomcoalition.com/?p=1130#comments Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:50:40 +0000 Sam http://www.internetfreedomcoalition.com/?p=1130 By Peter Sunderman
Reason Hit & Run Blog

With the FCC’s September meeting just a few weeks away—it’s scheduled for September 23rd—the agency has been under enormous pressure to make a call on how it will pursue its Net neutrality agenda. On the left, the loudest members of the activist class have urged the FCC to embark on a program of wholesale regulatory reclassification, shifting broadband Internet from a Title I information service to Title II telecommunications service. The problem, though, is that just about everyone else, including Democrats in Congress and some factions within the White House, has been pushing the agency to hold its regulatory horses.

But even given the widespread pushback, it’s tough to let down the activist base in an election year. So what’s FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski doing? Attempting to split the difference. Rather than rile up the base or pursue a path toward a potential “Regulatory World War III,” he’s clearing his throat and announcing his intention to punt until after the election. In a statement this afternoon, Genachowski announced that he would delay definitive action on two of the most controversial aspects of Net policy, managed services (essentially, web traffic prioritization), and the even bigger question of whether or not to extend neutrality rules to wireless services. But Genachowski isn’t simply delaying. He’s also “seeking further public comment,” which makes it tougher to oppose the move. Who wants to be against a robust discussion of the issues?

Read Genachowski’s complete statement here. Lots more on the FCC and the fight over Internet regulation here, here, and here.

The Federal Communications Commission has been relatively silent since Google and Verizon released their net neutrality policy proposal in early August. On Wednesday, however, the agency called for additional comment on two key components of the Google-Verizon plan – the exemption for wireless and other “specialized” services.

“The FCC’s Wireline and Wireless Bureaus are seeking further public comment on issues related to ’specialized’ (or ‘managed’) services and mobile broadband,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a statement. “The information received through this inquiry, along with the record developed to date, will help complete our efforts to construct an enforceable framework to preserve Internet freedom and openness.”

Last month Google and Verizon released a plan that would impose net neutrality principles on the Web, but exempt the wireless industry, as well as other “additional” service that broadband providers might embark upon in the future, like telemedicine.

The plan created quite the firestorm, with detractors accusing Google of going against its “don’t be evil” motto and agreeing to the plan to boost its Android operating system. Google, however, denied that it had “sold out” or that it was entering into a business arrangement. Google said it remained committed to an open Internet.

Verizon, meanwhile, insisted that wireless is a different beast and should be treated as such. With the spectrum crunch and all the innovation that’s happening in the space, the government should not constrain its growth, the company said. Rival AT&T agreed.

The Google-Verizon proposal, however, was just that – it cannot go into effect unless the FCC or a member of Congress take action on it. The FCC proposed its own net neutrality plan in October, but it would not exempt the wireless industry. The commission has held a number of meetings with various stakeholders in recent months, but those meetings have not produced a solid agreement.

The debate over net neutrality has been “longstanding and acrimonious,” Genachowski said Wednesday.

The chairman did not mention Google or Verizon by name in his statement (though the formal public notice touches on it), but he said “recent events” have highlighted whether net neutrality should apply to wireless and specialized services.

“As we’ve seen, the issues are complex, and the details matter,” Genachowski said. “Even a proposal that accepts enforceable rules can be flawed in its specifics and risk undermining the fundamental goal of preserving the open Internet.”

Those who wish to submit comments have 30 days to so do, and then an additional 55 days to issue reply comments, according to the public notice.

“As we move forward, the FCC will continue to be vigilant in guarding against threats to Internet freedom,” Genachowski concluded. “We will be focused on a vision of a ubiquitous and super-fast Internet, with flourishing entrepreneurship and vibrant start-ups, and massive private investment in Internet infrastructure, content, and services – an Internet that is an engine for our economy, and provides a world of knowledge and free speech accessible to all.”

By now it’s obvious that the government’s “stimulus” spending spree has failed to achieve its intended results—just as critics of Keynesian economic theory predicted. Compounding the policy blunder is the failure of officials to properly vet some of the costly public works projects.

Case in point is the $7.2 billion broadband deployment scheme: Federal officials failed to determine whether targeted communities actually lack Internet service options. In a number of cases, in fact, the government subsidies will put existing private service providers at a competitive disadvantage.

Some $2.2 billion has already been allocated by the Departments of Commerce (DOC) and Agriculture (DOA) to enhance broadband services in “unserved” and “underserved” areas. (The balance of funding is scheduled to be awarded by September 30.) But according to a newly released report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), program officials “lack detailed data on the availability of broadband service throughout the country, making it difficult to determine whether a proposed service area is unserved or underserved.”

Up to $350 million of the broadband funding is earmarked for developing a nationwide map of broadband service availability. However, the mapping project will not be finalized until at least 2011. And, given the dynamics of the broadband market, with customers constantly moving between various technologies, the map will likely be obsolete by the time it is completed.

In processing grant applications, both DOC and DOA solicited public comments on the availability of service to determine whether a subsidized project would constitute an “overbuild.” But according to GAO investigators, the process was “cumbersome,” and the resulting analysis “inconclusive” at times. During its review, in fact, the GAO found several instances of projects that compete with existing providers.

That helps to clarify why Texas, with some 161 existing providers of high-speed broadband service, was granted a whopping $184 million in deployment subsidies—more than any other state in the first round of funding. Kansas, with 96 existing service providers, was granted more than $121 million, while Pennsylvania received $135 million despite a total of 87 services providers statewide.

It turns out that the program rules allow up to 25 percent of a government-financed deployment project to compete with an existing service provider. Consequently, the subsidized projects could very well squeeze out the jobs and investment that stimulus funds are intended to promote. GAO investigators noted that “funding projects … where there may already be existing providers could potentially discourage further private investment in the area and undermine the viability of both the incumbents’ investment and the broadband stimulus project.”

This disregard for the private sector is all too reminiscent of the municipal broadband craze that swept the country earlier this decade. Dozens of local governments hatched plans to build and operate broadband networks or develop broadband infrastructure for wholesale lease to commercial service providers. But as they lacked the expertise and flexibility of the private sector, the results weren’t pretty. Many of the projects were never completed, while others saddled taxpayers with unwelcome debt.

Proponents contend that the broadband subsidies will stimulate economic growth, create jobs, and alleviate computer illiteracy. But that won’t happen if, in the process, the subsidized services undermine private sector investment. If public officials are so intent on promoting broadband, the far better alternative is to reduce the tax and regulatory barriers that inhibit universal deployment.

California GOP Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina this week staked out her spot opposing tough Net neutrality rules.

The former Hewlett-Packard CEO and telecommunications industry executive told POLITICO she opposes any federal requirement that Internet providers treat all Web traffic equally.

“The principle sounds fantastic, but the principle is not the problem,” Fiorina said in an interview at the Technology Policy Institute’s conference in Aspen, Colo. “The problem is how companies and regulatory bodies are trying to translate that principle into policy, which would have a bad effect.”

A spokeswoman later added that Fiorina “opposes Net neutrality and thinks government intervention and more regulation will not be helpful where the Internet is concerned.”

Fiorina’s position contrasts greatly with that of her opponent, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, who previously cosponsored legislation that would have set open Internet rules firmly in place. 

In a statement, Boxer reaffirmed her support for Net neutrality. Her office later added that Boxer felt it was “premature to comment” on the Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to mandate Net neutrality using its own rule-making process.

Fiorina criticized the agency for contemplating any legal avenue that would see Internet providers subject to some of the same rules that currently apply to phone services.

“The FCC is not an appropriate regulatory body for all of the advances going on for the Internet,” she said.

Ultimately, the Net neutrality issue is unlikely to energize voters in a race pivoting primarily on economic issues, and Fiorina’s comments most likely won’t shake the ground in Silicon Valley, especially given her more than 20 years of experience at AT&T and Lucent Technologies.

Many of the Golden State’s top tech companies have also long made up their minds, said Ralph Hellmann, senior vice president of the Information Technology Industry Council. He added many of those firms “are already close to Boxer.”

But a Fiorina win could make it more difficult for Net neutrality advocates to get anything through the Senate next year, especially if the FCC finds itself mired in legal battles should it reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service.

Fiorina also offered a lengthy set of other tech agenda items she hopes to advance if elected, including a permanent extension of the R&D tax credit.

Republicans earlier this year blocked the Senate tax extenders bill, which included a temporary extension of the R&D credit. Boxer also supports the permanent extension. 

Fiorina further emphasized the need for reform to guest visa laws, which she said would allow talent from abroad to stimulate innovation in California, and she proffered the importance of free trade agreements to economic development. She hammered Boxer for prioritizing neither issue, although the Boxer camp says that that the senator strongly supports increasing guest worker visas and incentivizing successful foreign students to work at high-tech companies in the United States. 

“I would sum it up as her economic policy is higher taxes, more regulation and bigger government, and she has not been a friend to the technology industry or any other industry,” Fiorina said.

Boxer’s campaign noted the many industry bellwethers that have donated to the incumbent — including Cisco and Oracle. Fiorina, on the other hand, boasts financial support from the likes of Intel and AT&T.

HP, for its part, is staying on the sidelines. A spokesperson told POLITICO the company was “leaving it to California voters to evaluate the candidates.”

CORRECTION: This article was updated to clarify Boxer’s position on visas and reflect the fact that her office, not her campaign, provided more information about net neutrality.

Proponents of network neutrality, of regulating the way Internet service providers (ISPs) manage web traffic, claim to champion a populist cause, a fight for the little guy, the meek and forgotten ones.

Although their intentions may well be noble, they couldn’t be more wrong about their means. The governing body they would entrust with the power to decide how ISPs operate, the Federal Communications Commission, has shown little wisdom or regard for the public’s best interests.

The FCC has treated a District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruling that clearly limited the commission’s powers as a mere speed bump in its quest to control the Internet. Instead of accepting the court’s definition of the commission’s authority, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski wants to reclassify broadband Internet as a Title II telecommunications service instead of the less-regulated Title I information service it currently is.

This maneuver has annoyed legislators on both sides of the aisle. Earlier this month, 73 congressional Democrats and 171 Republicans urged the FCC not to reclassify.

With the judicial and legislative branches united against the FCC, turning popular opinion could go a long way toward stopping a catastrophic overreach in executive power. New York University’s Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute provides some persuasive information for that effort: a study of the grim economic consequences Genachowski’s power-grab would bring.

Regulating ISPs will stifle innovation by reducing economic incentives, the study finds. In the best-case scenario, FCC-enforced net neutrality would result in a 10 percent reduction in investment by ISPs, costing the United States economy $62 billion a year and 502,000 jobs. Other reports project investment cuts of 20 or 30 percent and jobs losses of up to 1.5 million. Over just five years, the NYU study concludes, the United States will likely lose $310 billion in GDP if Genachowski gets his way.

In a speech to the Economic Club of Washington, DC, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg said the FCC is attempting to force “an unimaginative and overbearing set of rules” that “will cause uncertainty in the marketplace, create disincentives for investment,” and hinder competition. The FCC’s plan would severely handicap worthy but bandwidth-heavy services such as telemedicine and investment portfolio management, which can’t operate properly if ISPs are prevented from giving them priority over bandwidth hogs such as illegal file-sharing services. Investment in promising technology would be cut dramatically.

In a report released this week, the Progressive Policy Institute notes that in the three previous economic downturns, a single innovative industry led the nation out of recession. Heavy federal regulation of today’s innovative industries, information technology and telecommunications, would be a huge mistake. “The innovative process is more fragile than it seems, so tightening up regulation at this early stage can potentially choke off the boom. Indeed, regulators should give the benefit of the doubt to innovative industries,” the report notes.

The Internet has thrived without ISP regulation from the FCC. In mid-June top telcos, including Verizon, Comcast, and DirecTV, came together to create their own regulatory board to ensure services are delivered in the best way possible. The industry is making every effort to meet consumer demand for good services at low prices, and the result has been a strong boost to the nation’s GDP over the years.

The FCC’s pursuit of regulation is simply a power-grab that will hurt both Internet users and the economy.

Marc Oestreich is telecommunications legislative specialist for The Heartland Institute.

FOR MORE THAN a decade, “net neutrality” — a commitment not to discriminate in the transmission of Internet content — has been a rule tacitly understood by Internet users and providers alike.

The Alliance for Women in Media has weighed in with the FCC on the plan announced many months ago by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to find a way for preserve an open internet by making limited use of common carrier regulation authority. AWM says such an approach would stifle investment, therefore limiting employment opportunities for its constituents.

In a release AWM stated, “AWM shares the fears of many industry and public interest group commenters that imposing the common carrier regulatory structure and its attendant costs could reduce investment and employment in broadband, with particular adverse impact on opportunities for women.”

The group continued, “AWM agrees with those commenters that the better course would be for the FCC to work with Congress for limited legislation that would allow the Commission to exercise direct, sensible regulatory oversight of Internet access, including net neutrality issues, while leaving this dynamic and still-evolving technology free from the constraints of century-old utilities regulation.”

Someone has to say it. The debate surrounding so-called net neutrality proposed policies reminds me of a heavily Marxist-influenced student protest from 1968. It’s all about keeping private property in name only, while regulating the product so that it can only be provided in a way defined by the government. In other words, it’s a regulated utility which may just as well not be a private enterprise at all.

The “debate” regarding net neutrality is in fact no debate at all, reading 99% of the commentary on the matter. It’s equivalent to the debate surrounding “rent control” in many cities, say 50 years ago. Just prohibit private property owners to run their businesses the way they want, and the consumer will benefit unequivocally and proportionately the argument goes. The government bureaucrat proposing to rob Peter and give the monies to Paul can always count on the support from Paul.

We all know what a brilliant idea rent control was. Indeed, applying the net neutrality principle to all of society, as it was ostensibly done in the Soviet Union, really catapulted the standard of living forward to new consumer friendly heights — not.

So what is net neutrality? It’s the idea that it will be illegal for anyone to purchase preferred access on broadband networks — wired as well as wireless. All bits must be treated equally. No special privileges for anyone. A fine principle, taken straight out of Cambodia’s “Killing Fields” and of every other socialist utopia attempted over the last 100 years or so.

Indeed, why limit the net neutrality legislation to broadband networks? Shouldn’t all products and services in society benefit from the egalitarian principle of nobody being able to purchase a preferred service or product? Take an airline, for example. Let’s establish an air neutral policy of prohibiting business class and the practice of charging people based on supply and demand for seats. Each airline seat will have a fixed price and there will be no multiple classes of service. Air neutrality will prevail in the same nirvana as on the net utopia envisioned by the Federal Communications Commission.

What are the most important products in society? Food, shelter and clothing. Without them, we would die relatively soon. We can manage without broadband, air travel, and even health care in many cases over an entire lifetime. Let’s apply the net neutrality principle to food. Nobody should be able to buy “preferred” food of higher quality and better taste than anyone else. This dictates a government bureaucracy dispensing identical rations to all citizens. Think Mao’s Chinese cultural revolution and great leap, and 50 million dead.

The net neutrality principle applied to shelter? Equal apartments to all. Nobody should be able to pay for a better house than anyone else. That is, except for the political elite. Did you ever pay a visit to a Moscow suburb in the 1980s?

How about the net neutrality principle applied to clothes? Nobody should be able to pay up for something differentiated or better. Government must ensure neutrality in clothing, with everyone in adult school uniforms. Think North Korea or China in the 1950s, again. I can’t wait!

I could go on and on showing how the net neutrality principle is simply a warmed-over Marxist wet dream. The sad part here is that these madnesses of Marxism sometimes make it into policy, such as the innocent-sounding “rent control” which managed to destroy the living conditions in many U.S. cities for decades until they were phased out, allowing for entrepreneurial freedom and individuality.

Owners of broadband networks need to have the freedom to provide access to their properties on whichever terms they see fit, just like owners of hotels and airlines. If the consumers demand and are willing to pay for usage looking like net neutrality, chances are those service providers will find it in their best interest to supply services in that fashion. You can always get together with like-minded investors and build your own net neutral network if you think the incumbents aren’t doing what they should.

We just can’t have a situation — at least not in a free non-North Korea-style society — in which government bureaucrats dictate the manner in which private companies provide services. If this happens, we must ask ourselves why the government doesn’t just expropriate Comcast(CMCSA <http://www.thestreet.com/quote/CMCSA.html> ), AT&T(T <http://www.thestreet.com/quote/T.html> ), Verizon(VZ <http://www.thestreet.com/quote/VZ.html> ), Time Warner Cable (TWC <http://www.thestreet.com/quote/TWC.html> ) and others. If a private company isn’t allowed to design and price its product in any manner its shareholders see fit, we simply aren’t a free country anymore.

Back in 1944, Friedrich Von Hayek, who later came to receive the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974, published his most-read book — “The Road To Serfdom” — in which he explained that government control over the private means of production must spiral into a lack of political freedom. If people don’t have control of their private property, they cannot fund political pluralism.

Hayek’s book became a favorite behind the Iron Curtain, passing hands in brown envelopes because its possession could yield a labor camp sentence or worse. In the current net neutrality debate, we should heed Hayek’s warning and praise the right of owners of property to be free from socialism enacted through the back door. If you like government-mandated products and services — from food to clothing, shelter and transport — you will love net neutrality. Those of us who value the freedoms afforded to us through our exercise of private property rights will fight net neutrality just like Ronald Reagan fought the Evil Empire.

Advocates of net neutrality tend to be the same people who complain that there hasn’t been enough broadband capacity built. If broadband networks are to remain privately owned, net neutrality legislation will only serve to disincentivize investment. If the government told you how you had to use your house, offer services in your hotel, or whatever, how much would you invest in such a building? Probably next to nothing. You surely wouldn’t expand. This is basic incentive theory, folks. If the government will punish you for making an investment, you’re not going to do it. Enacting net neutrality legislation is simply one big discouragement of investment.