Last week, I received a reply from Chuck Fleischmann, my "Representative" in the House, concerning my support for net neutrality. Much of it's the usual noncommittal "I'm taking this issue seriously" boilerplate, but here's the important part. Emphasis is mine:
Although I think net neutrality is well intentioned, I have concerns about it in the form of a government mandate. The internet has been an astonishing success in the past two decades. Content discrimination by and large remains a hypothetical problem, and I typically dislike the idea of regulating hypothetical problems. I also have concerns about privacy for end users, and I worry about the effect of regulation on innovation. The internet is largely a success because it is so unregulated and decentralized. Net neutrality would do away with both of those characteristics.
It's hard to see how he could get this any more wrong. Hop below the orange hourglass for my response.
You said: "Content discrimination by and large remains a hypothetical problem, and I typically dislike the idea of regulating hypothetical problems. I also have concerns about privacy for end users, and I worry about the effect of regulation on innovation."
Perhaps you haven't read the news stories about Comcast and Verizon deliberately slowing down Netflix traffic. A few links, shortened for your convenience:
http://bit.ly/...
http://bit.ly/...
http://bit.ly/...
Here's the simple truth, everything you need to know about net neutrality: It's the internet's default condition. From the earliest days of the internet, the net was neutral. "Net neutrality" isn't some New Policy to be afraid of - it's how things used to be, until certain companies saw the opportunity for extortion.
All I'm asking for - all the Net Neutrality movement is asking for - is that the internet STAYS neutral. We don't want big, established companies to get to step on small startups. Neutrality is what enabled companies like Google and Netflix to grow from garage startups into large companies, and that's a good thing. It should continue. More people should be able to start their own small businesses on the internet, without the fear of being cut off at the knees. This is one case where the LACK of regulation can not only hinder, but outright cripple small businesses.
(Perhaps I should mention that I am self-employed. I use the internet to work for a small business in Texas. These are not theoretical concerns for me.)
Consider what's happened in the EU with their new electronic-sales VAT regulations. Because those rules make no provision for small businesses and have no minimum threshold, an independent author who sells one 99-cent story online to an EU customer suddenly becomes responsible for mountains of paperwork and tremendous compliance costs. As a result, small businesses and independent authors have been closing their doors, or at least refusing to sell to customers in the EU. Everybody loses. Businesses lose sales, authors lose fans, fans lose enjoyment, and the EU loses revenue.
Opposing net neutrality has the potential to do the same kind of damage. The internet was founded on neutrality. That's what makes it great, and it must be preserved.
By the by: Without net neutrality, Verizon and Comcast could decide to "deprioritize" all .gov websites...like the one I'm using to send this message. After all, letting average citizens voice their opinions makes it harder for those companies to get their way. Is that the sort of scenario you want to see?