The American Spectator

p> PARTISAN NEUTRALITY br> Re: The Washington Prowler’s “See No Evil” in Monday’s Senate Wash posting: /p>

Why do you place “Internet Neutrality” in quotes? Perhaps because you don’t have a clue what it means?

Network neutrality (the more accurate term) is about ensuring that a small group of companies (SBC/AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc.) aren’t allowed to control how the typical user uses the Internet connection for which he has already paid. The purpose of the supporters of network neutrality is to enshrine in law the de facto status quo of users (whether Microsoft or a single household) paying for their own connection to the Internet without SBC/AT&T, Verizon, or their local cable company forcing popular sites to pay them what amounts to protection money to ensure that connections which have already been paid for work properly. If I launch a new web service and pay for my own connection to the Internet, why should AT&T be allowed to bill me because their own paying customers choose to go to my site? This is what AT&T has made clear it wants to start doing and hence the push for network neutrality laws. Given the rumblings of major executives at SBC/AT&T and other ISPs it seems clear that these companies will soon use their position as ISPs to prevent competition from the likes of Skype by purposely degrading the performance of their service — many think they are already doing this clandestinely. If network neutrality doesn’t become law it will become much more expensive to provide popular services on the Internet once the ISPs get their dream of a tiered (i.e. controlled by them) Internet. The result will be that only very well financed ventures with high profit margins will have any hope of succeeding. When this happens say goodbye to the kind of innovation we’ve come to expect on the Internet.

It is beyond me how you can make a link between Islamofascists, Chinese repression, and network neutrality. This is absurd as arguing that everyone who opposes gun control is a white supremacist because white supremacists also oppose gun control. I despise Yahoo, Google, etc.’s collaboration with the Chinese government in the name of “obeying local laws” as much as the next guy, but this has absolutely nothing to do with network neutrality. Perhaps you should wonder why so many groups from across the political spectrum are lining up behind network neutrality (see www.savetheinternet.com). Specifically, in addition to understanding the best interests of their constituents, the Christian Coalition almost certainly also fears receiving a bill from AT&T to ensure that AT&T customers can continue to access the Christian Coalition’s very popular website.

p>Even small-government conservatives like myself understand that all free markets require a degree of government protection to remain free. The problem is to minimize such protections and make them as simple and unbiased as possible. The principle of network neutrality is a perfect example of such a protection that government has an obligation to enshrine in law as soon as possible. Once network neutrality is lost and a tiered Internet is reality it will be impossible to turn back the clock. br> — Thomas Phelan br> Hightstown, New Jersey /p> p>