The on-going debate about the FCC’s proposed institution of formal “net neutrality” rules is becoming more heated, and both sides of the debate are stepping up the rhetoric:

“Network neutrality protects the fundamental rights of Americans in using the Internet and accessing content, applications, and services of their choice. A well-reasoned network neutrality policy also ensures a level playing field for companies large and small…” Senators Byron Dorgan (North Dakota, D) and Olympia Snowe (Maine, R)

I didn’t know Americans were at-risk in using the web, although now that you bring it up, I am concerned that any governmental regulations of the internet will surely threaten our access. And what, exactly, is a “level playing field” in the digital world?

“This is a down payment on creating a digital democracy. Today’s vote to begin the process of requiring nondiscrimination ensures, among other things, that large internet providers will be unable to block or throttle speech from competitors or those who disagree with them. The nondiscriminatory environment in which the Internet was developed fostered unprecedented opportunities for political and artistic expression.” Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president and CEO of the Media Access Project, a media reform and digital rights group.

Excuse me, but I thought we already had a “digital democracy.” Aren’t folks able to use the web as they choose? Ask the Iranian protestors if the internet was helpful in their pursuit for freedom. Wouldn’t any attempt to “block” access necessarily be made known and result in a backlash against the offending provider (unless it was illegal to do so, hmmm)?

Also, I’ve got to think that “the nondiscriminatory environment in which the Internet was developed” mentioned in the above quote remains in place today, thank you. Although the government could change that with these “hard” neutrality rules.

“I know of no empirical evidence suggesting that the openness of the Internet that we all value is under threat today, or is likely to be under threat tomorrow. In the absence of evidence of market failure or demonstrable consumer harms, the costs of government intervention are more likely to outweigh the benefits.” Barbara Eosin, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a free-market think tank.

This seems reasonable to me. What’s the crisis? What pending “crisis” will these rules prevent?

“As the FCC’s Broadband Task Force said recently, it could take $350 billion to build next-generation broadband across America, and most of that money will have to come from the private sector and companies like Comcast. We continue to hope that any rules adopted by the commission will not harm the investment and innovation that has made the Internet what it is today and that will make it even greater tomorrow.” David Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast

Unless I am wrong, it seems that the largest investors in the internet infrastructure, those like Comcast and other major providers, are possibly going to suffer the biggest losses if net neutrality is implemented. After spending billions on pipelines, the government now wants them to take their hands off any controls and offer everyone the same access, regardless of need for capacity or speed? This just seems wrong to me. Talk about stealing incentives.

Also, remember the day you paid more for usage over a certain amount? I’d guess that Comcast and others will resort to such “tiered service levels” if the government persists in this “neutrality” business.

“It is risky business for regulators to mess with a technologically dynamic environment that is working well for American consumers and the economy.” Randolph May, president of the Free State Foundation, a free-market think tank.

Well said, Mr. May.

Alright, I’ve spoken a bit of my mind. Obviously I am a free-market guy on this one, and in favor of letting those with the pipes have some control over their own expenses and income. I am also leery of the government’s idea of “fairness” – sorry, I just don’t trust the Feds to truly do the right thing here (or almost anywhere, frankly).

How about you? Reactions? What’s your take on this debate?