Out of Control

For a picture of how wrong-headed this is, and why, if enacted, network neutrality will result in another big government screw-up of a dynamic market, just see what Markey says about it. Even after years as either chairman or ranking member of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee, he still fails to understand how the industry works. In a quote last week, he virtually admitted that net neutrality is required, and that companies like Google are in a position to pay their share, but he somehow can’t grasp the difference between the requirements of a mature applications provider and a start-up require. Libertarians and free-marketers: Please don a bike helmet before you read the next quote, cited by Beta News, because it’s going make you want hit your head against a wall.

"Some people might ask, 'Well, at $500 a share, why can't Google pay for special treatment?' The reality is that at $500 a share Google can afford to pay. Yet the reality is that this is precisely the wrong question to ask. Instead, the question is whether Larry Page and Sergei Brin -- the two young founders of Google -- could have paid when they were mere grad students launching their idea.”

Of course, when Page and Brin were launching their Google, they did not have half a million servers crawling the Web cataloguing pages, processing and routing ads by location and keyword, and hosting email, video and worldwide geographical imaging and mapping (think Google Earth). Can Markey, or any other net neutrality supporter, see the difference between Google of 10 years ago and the companies they are today? It wasn’t net neutrality that made Google a success, it was the power of their idea and the innovation they brought to it. That led to the Google’s growth and expansion into other services—and its need to consume more Web resources, which it should rightfully pay for. No one stops to think that it’s Google’s innovative applications that are among the reasons we need tiered management now. Google should be lauded for pushing the Web development and creating more demand for services, which indeed has improved the Web. But the consequences have to be dealt with, and the proper way to do that is through new economic models. Google itself has enjoyed this freedom. Before Google, searches came without advertising, but they were nowhere near as thorough or easy. Google, which introduced an economic model to the equation, namely advertising, makes it more likely a small site will be found in a cursory search. At the same time, larger sites who pay Google for advertising, get the privilege of a listing at the top of the page. Markey selectively ignores this.

Getting back to Conyers’ antitrust bill, it is highly arguable that pro-active network management constitutes anti-competitive conduct. While Conyers and Markey cite Comcast’s recent throttling of BitTorrent traffic as abusive conduct, even some of Comcast’s most vocal critics said that the BitTorrent protocol has a disruptive effect on other users and that Comcast, as owner of its network, does have a right to ensure the majority of its customers get quality service.

It’s also alarming how rapidly network neutrality is being politicized, even as the FCC, in its recent hearings around the country, hears words of caution from the very parties network neutrality is supposed to “protect.” Rather than respect this, the reaction on Capitol Hill, exemplified again by Markey, has been a fit of “don’t-these-idiots-know-what’s-good-for-them” pique.

This blind rush to regulate the Internet, and dismiss the diversity of voices calling for care, is the best argument for putting the brakes network neutrality regulation. If Congress continues this ideological crusade, we stand to end up with a service boondoggle everyone regrets.