I'm officially flabbergasted by the debate around net neutrality.
This article details a recent speech given by Sen. Ron Wyden from Oregon as he spoke at a Computer & Communications Industry Association conference in DC.
In it he delivered a passionate declaration of his support for net neutrality. And to his credit he went into greater detail than most about his belief of why net neutrality is important and where the idea came from, stepping beyond simply equating it to free speech.
But at the same time, he spoke out directly against the possibility of network operators charging for higher tiers of service, which is something I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so long as these higher priority tiers of service don't slow down lower priority traffic and/or harm consumer freedom to use broadband however they want.
Here's where things get interesting: in denouncing the possibility of selling higher tiers of service, Wyden basically threatened network operators with two consequences.
First, they may lose safe harbor. Safe harbor is a provision of the Communications Decency Act that frees network operators from any liability associated with content delivered through their network. If they were to lose safe harbor it potentially opens them up to a host of lawsuits covering everything from kiddie porn to piracy to online scams.
Second, they may lose the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which has kept most taxes from applying to Internet connections. If lifted, a number of states will almost certainly begin taxing broadband as some have been wanting to do so for a while.
So if network operators ignore net neutrality and start selling higher tiers of service, they'll be vulnerable to new lawsuits and have to pay more taxes. Hmmmm...has anyone thought through what this might mean to consumers?
Last I checked, network operators didn't like squeezing their profits to pay extra taxes, so isn't it likely that any tax increase would simply be passed on to consumers?
And if network operators have to face a wave of lawsuits due to the loss of safe harbor, wouldn't that also likely result in the costs of litigation being added on to the bills of subscribers?
The cherry on top of this misguided sundae is that if we threaten to take away network operators' money, doesn't that mean they'll have less money to invest in upgrading the capacity of their networks?
So unless I'm reading this wrong, Sen. Wyden just made the assertion that passing net neutrality will mean higher cost and lower capacity broadband.
The only way I can see this not being the case is if net neutrality is followed up by massive government re-regulation of telecom, making a major move back to treating them as monopolies, telling them what they can and can't do, and providing a guaranteed rate of return to incentivize them to deploy everywhere.
At this time I'm not trying to qualify if that would be a good or bad thing, but it does certainly seem like an unlikely turn of events given that the last 15 years have been all about moving as far away from this mindset as possible.
What's frustrating in all this is that everyone has such a head of steam going about sticking it to the big evil broadband providers that it sometimes feels like all rational thought has gone out the window.
We can't punish network operators in such a way as to harm the interests of consumers. That's just not good policy.
What we need to do is set the goals for what we want broadband in this country to be, and then either find a way to entice incumbents into action to achieve them or establish a new alternative to the current market-driven approach to spurring broadband deployment.
And until we get to having that kind of a dialog, I couldn't be more concerned about how the unintended consequences of net neutrality may harm instead of help us.