Wired News recently published an articled entitled “Neutral Net? Who Are You Kidding?” which called into question the idea that the net is currently a “neutral zone,” arguing instead that the internet has always been subject to the control of those companies with the most money/customers/bandwidth. This is true, but the proposed regulations (conveniently listed in the article’s side bar) bring this out of the realm of free-market competition and under the control of federal government regulations.In the words of Paul Meisner, VP of global public policy for Amazon.com:

“To say it’s never been equal is obvious, but none of those services degrade other services on the internet. The problem arises when schemes are discussed that would prioritize some traffic over other traffic.” (emphasis added)

The controversy is over who gets to decide which traffic to prioritize. Ideally, this decision should be made by the users of the medium based on their needs and the demand of the majority. This is something free-market competition already helps to ensure, and regulations are already in place to prevent abuses of this system.The article raises an important issue, though, when it points out that–as the internet takes over more and more of the communication world, including telephone and cable television–the need for quality assurance will grow.

… if it’s true that the net is currently a hodgepodge of policies mostly worked out by parties seemingly at war with one another, it’s likely nothing compared to what’s in store once ISPs start to replicate cable TV and telephone service in earnest. In order to work, these applications require guaranteed quality of service, something that’s not usually available on the public internet today.

However, quality is exactly what is supposed to increase in a free-market system wherein providers are allowed to compete with one-another in providing the best service.Any regulations that are established should only ensure that competitors do not block access to one another and do not make exclusive deals with particular ISPs. Beyond that, in my opinion, the government should stay out and let the net continue to develop based on the needs (and preferences) of its users. In other words, a survival-of-the-fittest (coolest, most-efficient, etc.) model.Of course, I don’t claim to be an economist or a politician and could be missing an important piece of the puzzle here. If so, someone correct me. I’m just opposed to big government telling me what I can and cannot do on the net (within obvious moral/ethical boundaries), and don’t like the idea that one company can restrict my options simply because it has lots of money.

Related posts (auto-generated):

1. The Bloglines Ban Yesterday, Miguel Guhlin wrote a post about Bloglines’ new “Image Wall.” His main contention is that the images aren’t filtered, and so anyone using...
2. Obama and Redistribution I got an email the other day that contained the content of this post. In the post, the author creates an analogy that’s supposed...
3. This is Getting Ridiculous As if we needed more reasons for people to avoid the teaching profession and shy away from the use of technology: Norwich, Conn seventh...
4. Rampant Stupidity I don’t mean to be negative. I am, in general, a happy person who enjoys life and tends to prefer the optimistic perspective. Unfortunately,...
5. Change We Should Hope For I don’t know how anyone can listen to Obama’s campaign platform and not agree with the goals and principles he expresses or not feel...

| Print This