A Stitch in Haste

He's right...

New network technologies and management tools not only keep the Internet flowing, they also spur innovation. They can make sure applications requiring low delay, such as voice and gaming, will work. Soon, personalized Internet HDTV will become possible. Gaming will continue to grow as picture quality takes on real-life imagery. And business tools, such as video conferencing, will become more significant as the quality of video and audio improves. These types of entertainment and communications innovations can only emerge if providers have the incentives to build networks capable of delivering them.

Is regulation needed to accomplish "Net neutrality"? The prudent policy at this point would be not to regulate. First, the Internet is still in its adolescence, and it is undergoing rapid change. Regulation would lock in rules and practices that might seem correct today, but could create havoc tomorrow.

...and he's right...

The implications of permanently losing network neutrality could not be more serious. The current legislation, backed by companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, would allow the firms to create different tiers of online service. They would be able to sell access to the express lane to deep-pocketed corporations and relegate everyone else to the digital equivalent of a winding dirt road. Worse still, these gatekeepers would determine who gets premium treatment and who doesn't.

Their idea is to stand between the content provider and the consumer, demanding a toll to guarantee quality delivery. It's what Timothy Wu, an Internet policy expert at Columbia University, calls "the Tony Soprano business model": By extorting protection money from every Web site — from the smallest blogger to Google — network owners would earn huge profits. Meanwhile, they could slow or even block the Web sites and services of their competitors or those who refuse to pay up. They'd like Congress to "trust them" to behave.

...they can't both be right!

I'm still hesitantly leaning toward supporting net neutrality. It seems to be a choice between two business models. Net neutrality is like the cell phone industry — if I use twice as much capacity (i.e., twice as many minutes), then I pay twice as much for it (give or take) in a market that is (relatively) competitive, and it doesn't matter whom I'm calling and he pays nothing to my provider (he might have to pay his own provider, but not mine).

Anti-neutrality is clearly like the cable television model — both buyers and sellers of content (i.e., subscribers and media companies) pay the gatekeeper for access to the pipe, in an arrangement awarded and protected by government monopoly.

Would anyone dare suggest that innovation in cable television has progressed more quickly than in wireless telephony, or that most people are more satisfied with their cable provider than with their cell phone company? I think not.

History, short as it may be, is clearly on the side of the net neutrality crowd. As is basic economics, I think.

In any case, I am really starting to hate this issue. I loathe ambivalence and indecisiveness, which is exactly what the net neutrality debate inflicts upon me.

Can we have the Marriage Protection Amendment vote again? That was so much easier...

Open thread: anyone with any opinions one way or the other on net neutrality please feel free to sell me and your fellow readers on your point of view.

More thoughts from Greg Mankiw, Arnold Kling, Eli Dourado, Marginal Revolution, Samizdata.