Net Neutrality in the Senate

The Senate is looking into Net Neutrality today. The Senate Commerce Committee will be meeting shortly to markup the Stevens bill, which updates the Communication Act of 1934 (and they'll probably vote on it next week). Net neutrality is just one aspect of this bill, but it's the part that can potentially change the Internet as we know it. Christy at firedoglake has contact info for anti-net neutrality and wavering senators.

As usual, Matt Stoller has some good information at MyDD. He quotes Internet copyright (and oh, so much more) guru Lawrence Lessig on how much we should trust the telecom companies, who are basically lying to us about their intentions and their possible effects on the Internet. It amazes me that as they recognized the power grab at their disposal, they've completely turned their backs on the beloved free markets. The telecom argument, as I understand it, is that the Internet will get clogged with too many users but no one will pay to improve it, so it will all become less efficient. Essentially, the market will demand change, but the telecoms will fold their arms and stomp their feet at the market and refuse because it will cost them money. They'll defy the market, and they seem to believe that they'll come out winners for doing so.

I'm hardly a world-class economist (in fact, I'm not any class of economist), but this is completely contrary to any information I've ever seen about market forces. If the Internet market demands change, and the telecoms refuse to provide that change, the market will find another way and change without them. That's why the telecoms are trying to write into law provisions that will force themselves on the market and won't allow it to change without them--that will, instead, alter the market to obey their whims. Well, guess what--markets don't operate that way. Sure, the telecoms may have the brute force to push their changes through, and they may do every bad thing supporters of net neutrality fear. But that just means the market will shift around them. We forget in this country that we're part of a world market, and I fear this legislation will undermine future innovations coming from the United States. If this passes, we may find ourselves locked into a moribund Internet that emulates the price and content structures of cable TV while the rest of the world progresses without us. My best case scenario is that we'll all come up with work-arounds (such as municipal wireless, even if we should be wary that it doesn't get overhyped) and the telecoms will ultimately become irrelevant. Worst case would be that we're stuck with whatever system the telecoms devise to separate the elite from the rabble, and that would make the U.S. Internet much less user friendly and force us to lag behind the rest of the world in content and tech innovation.

Getting back to Stoller's post (here's the link again), he quotes SBC (now renamed AT&T) investor info from 2002 about how upgrading their infrastructure--the very act they now fear will be too expensive--will actually more than pay for itself in improved efficiency. No wonder they want to start charging for their pipes--they can save money on their own operating expenses and increase their revenues at the same time. It's win-win (unless you're a consumer).

Call the senators on Commerce Committee. And for further information, there's always Save the Internet.com.