“Saving” the Internet requires placing restrictions on what the ISPs can and can’t do, right? Wrong. There’s an interesting op-ed in the University of Texas Daily Texan explaining that imposing new laws is not how to save the Internet:

Proponents of net neutrality would like you to think that large service providers had nothing to do with inventing our modern Internet, but this notion isn’t true. Even though explorations into the Internet began at major academic universities for the purpose of research, it is highly unlikely that private companies would never have entered into the market of Internet services. Companies eventually moved into the Internet communications market, albeit backed by government protectionism through such policies as the Communications Act of 1934.

Sure, the government invented the Internet, nobody can dispute that. But it’s equally indisputable that private enterprise and the free market made the Internet great. As we look toward the future, it’s still business and the market that will build the next generation Internet. The only question is who pays for it, and the proponents of “net neutrality” want to shift that burden from big companies, including the ISPs and content providers, to you the consumer:

The net neutrality argument isn’t really a “little guy” movement, but a corporate protectionist measure on behalf of those like Google and Amazon. If economic prosperity in the Internet service industry is our goal, then we should not hinder Internet service providers from demanding varying prices from different content providers to finance important and necessary upgrades to the Internet infrastructure.

If you really want to save the Internet, it doesn’t need saving from the marketplace — it needs to be saved from the regulators.

Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti may be able to conjure something from nothing in the movies, but in real life it’s a bit harder. Not that it’s stopped supporters of Internet regulations from claiming that there will be problems if a “net neutrality” law hasn’t passed.

Luckily, our own Chris Wolf published an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune (that’s the overseas version of the New York Times) last week titled “The illusion of ‘net neutrality.’” Pointing out basic facts of court law, he makes it clear why it would be such a mistake to take them seriously:

[C]ourts regularly are confronted with theoretical conflicts that have not yet occurred and they regularly refrain from meddling. As a matter of prudence, the judicial branch of government will not rule on such cases as they are not “ripe” for review. Claims that rest upon future events that may never occur routinely are thrown out of court.

One reason courts refrain is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to fashion appropriate remedies in the abstract without harming the parties and the public interest.

In policymaking, too, in the absence of a real problem, there is a substantial risk of “solutions” harming the companies making the investment in - and responsible for - the Internet infrastructure, and of harming the public interest in the rapid build-out of the next-generation Internet.

Without knowing what constitutes a bull’s eye, it is difficult if not impossible to aim relief. The courts know this to be the case when they are presented with hypotheticals. In the case of regulated “Net neutrality,” policymakers would be wise to exercise similar restraint. To imagine a new department of Internet regulation is to glimpse the nightmare of unintended consequences.

When you have common sense on your side, you don’t need to be a magician. And unless you can see the future, a wait-and-see approach makes the most sense of all.

The noise from the UK at the Westminster E-Forum? Yawn, snore, zzzzz…..What is all the fuss about? Is David Beckham back from LA??

There was a consensus among Britain’s regulatory gurus this week that the brouhaha in the States over net neutrality laws is a moot point because existing regulatory processes can address any inappropriate blocking or degrading practices by ISPs should they occur. This is something Hands Off has been arguing for quite a while now.

Speakers repeatedly pointed out facts that support Hands Off’s case for keeping the Internet free of additional regulation in the form of legislated net neutrality laws. To name a few:

The Register reports that Ofcom’s director of policy development, Dougal Scott told the gathering: “’There is a very rapid increase of traffic on the internet,’ said Scott on Tuesday, pointing to a ‘change in the nature of applications that people are using on the internet’, particularly time-sensitive applications like voice over IP. He went on to characterise the ‘all bits are equal’ advocates as the ‘most extreme’ fringe of the net neutrality lobby, and insisted that there were ‘real advantages to consumers in treating certain types of applications differently to others’.”

Claire Hobson, head of UK telecommunications policy for the Department of Trade and Industry, stated, as has Hands Off, that the net is not currently neutral.

Andy May, Cable & Wireless’ director of regulatory affairs, “pointed to the rise of online video as a major reason for the introduction of discrimination.”

Ok, granted we fought them in the Revolution and again in 1812, but they did give us the political philosophy that formed the building blocks of our democracy (hat tip John Locke). Continuing the trend of good ideas coming from across the pond, Hands off’s analysis of the Westminster reaction to the net neutrality debate: well played!

What’s that sound? Is it the sound of another think tank concluding that net neutrality laws could be disastrous? Yes it is — this week the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Policy Studies (whew!) reached its own conclusion on what regulations like the Dorgan-Snowe bill could bring.

Lawrence Spiwak, president of the Phoenix Center, said:

The growing capacity demands of video on the Internet, coupled with the pernicious increase of spam and viruses, threaten an on-line traffic jam. To maximize bandwidth, operators need the flexibility to meet the different needs with different types of services. But many network neutrality proposals mandate rigidity.

Or as the report’s abstract puts it,

‘network neutrality’ proposals … seek to mandate an inflexible set of rules that would foreclose or severely limit many market transactions. Our model reveals that under plausible conditions, rules that prohibit efficient commercial transactions between content and broadband service providers could, in fact, be bad for all participants: consumers would pay higher prices, the profits of the broadband service provider would decline, and the sales of Internet content providers would also decline. Moreover, rules that prohibit the market from contracting efficiently may shift sales from content providers to the broadband provider’s content affiliate, a result entirely inconsistent with the stated desire of network neutrality proponents.

Got that? Net neutrality is not only a terrible idea that would hurt everybody involved, the likely actual effects of net neutrality regulations could actually bring about the world of ISP-centric online services that supporters of Dorgan-Snowe fear. With evidence like this mounting, we’re surprised they continue to back such an obviously flawed bill.

To read the full thing in PDF form, click here.

Like the Deloitte & Touche report last month, or the many independent experts and Internet pioneers including Robert Kahn and Dave Farber, by the time we get to Phoenix there are plenty of expert voices calling for the government to refrain from messing with the Internet. But more are always welcome.

Have proponents of “net neutrality” gone too far? We’ve said so for awhile now, but even some websites sympathetic to Internet regulation are blanching at the latest bad idea, called “wireless net neutrality,” the latest idea from the theorist behind the original movement, Tim Wu. For instance, the reliably pro-NN, anti-telecom industry blog TechDirt has reluctantly published an article titled “Call For ‘Wireless Net Neutrality’ Just A Little Off-Base.” Here’s the short version:

Net neutrality is a loaded term that’s almost guaranteed to instantly raise people’s blood pressure. But it’s really a pretty poor term to use here. Wu raises some good points, but much of his paper is undermined by some misunderstandings of the market, and a failure to realize that the highly competitive mobile market is already moving toward openness, so any neutrality regulations would be premature and unnecessary.

The contributor doesn’t say what he thinks about plain old, wired net neutrality, but his arguments against the wireless form sound strikingly like, well, like that of a net neutrality skeptic:

Wu’s calls for neutrality regulations are premature and unnecessary. … The market is competitive, and any net neutrality or device attachment regulations simply aren’t necessary at this point.

We’ll certainly give them a hand for that.

We don’t know very much about the blog Alonline except that it is probably written by a guy named Al, and that Al definitely works in the telecom field. One other thing we know is that he makes a great case about why “net neutrality” legislation would be a bad deal for consumers:

Working in a telecommunication company I can understand the immense investment that is required to get a measurable increase in Internet speed for customers. Just working on a very local level can involve digging up roads, buying land for equipment to stand on, and a lot of very expensive equipment. When you come to the connection to the backbone then you are looking at considerably more expense as you head into units that have figures like 256Gbps in their description. And when you see what these units need to do then you realise why they cost so much. However the cost of the units is nothing compared to ensuring that the fibre optic network they connect to has the capability to carry the volume of data required - quality fibre optic cable is not cheap at all. So if a telecommunication company cannot realise any major revenue from upgrading these expensive items what do you think it’s going to do? Spend and be damned, or wait until it has to spend and then spend as little as possible? As you can see, offering the telecommunication companies an opportunity to charge the service provider companies that use the most bandwidth might be the only way that the Internet can get a chance to expand to have any redundancy and spare capacity. So it might, actually be worth voting against Net Neutrality from now on - at least if you hope to get speeds above a couple of Mbps.

If you’re reading this now and you’re in the position of voting on net neutrality, two things: 1) Hello, Senator or Representative! It’s good to have you here. 2) Alonline has a point.

The latest smart commentary on so-called net neutrality comes from Phil Kerpen, an analyst with Americans for Prosperity. He writes:

The Google/MoveOn.org coalition fighting for network neutrality mandates calls itself “Save the Internet.” But the Internet doesn’t need to be saved–it needs to be improved, expanded and bulked up. An attempt to “save” the Internet in its current state would be something akin to saving the telegraph from the telephone.

Sometimes it takes a silly analogy to make a serious point. And this one happens to be spot on — the Internet is very much in its infancy — its telegraph stage. What if Congress had created a law making telephones illegal because they would interfere with the operation of telegraphs? How much would that law stifle innovation in the United States? Luckily, we never had to find that one out. Congress would be wise to learn that lesson and let the Internet grow by itself.