Who Cares About Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality mania is sweeping the country, right?  A tribute album in praise of dumb pipes is just around the corner?  A million geek march to DC is coming soon?  Not likely.

That doesn't mean it isn't a smoking hot issue in tech policy circles.  It rightly is.  But, Net Neutrality is just too darn complex and the potential problems too ethereal for the average net user to get hot and bothered about it.  If people aren't going to get fired up about global warming because they don't see a negative impact today, than they aren't going to stay up late at night worried that their ISP may someday slow down their online bridge game.

Check out the graph below from the super cool, new "Google Trends" tool that analyzes search trends across the world.  This analysis below only looks at the United States in 2006. It speaks a 1000 words and helps explain why some are pushing for legislation that bans Facebook and MySpace in libraries and schools but aren't grandstanding their net neutrality position to constituents (super net-savvy districts perhaps excluded).  Perhaps this is a good thing and helps legislators focus on the merits of the pending proposals and not the political points scored from taking one side or the other.

privacy    piracy    "net neutrality"    facebook    youtube   

Comments

[Luv2Box]

I'm a heavy home Internet user and former high tech employee. From both perspectives, I believe Net Neutrality will equate to bad business across the board. I see governments around the world helping expand and innovate the Internet and technology, but where are we? Stuck in the quagmire of discussing whether or not we should regulate the Internet! It's such a silly notion to begin with! How about we leave the Internet to those who know how to run it and make it better and leave government OUT?

[lemon_lyman]

Has the left ever met a government regulation they don't like? Is there an epidemic, or even a single occurence, of an internet user being denied access to a legal website of his/her choosing? The answer to both questions is NO. There are very few examples in recent American history where market self-correction, "the invisible hand" of economics, has not worked out to the best benefit of consumers. "Net nuetrality" would not only lower the cost of distribution, benifitting the SELLERS and leaving the BUYERS to pick up the tab, but it also presents another example of government interference into Americans every day lives. We have enough taxes and/or regulations to worry about, do we really need more in terms of the internet, a resource that's freedom has until recently been taken for granted? Let's not seek solutions when no problems exist, especially when it means a little less freedom for all of us.

[doberman]

It is truly backward logic to "protect" internet innovation by regulating it.

[Net Chick]

Net neutrality has nothing to do with being neutral! Verizon owns their own bandwidth so they should be able to say how they use it. If they want to charge Google for premium listing, good for them. Google should either pay it or start looking elsewhere – just as we consumers do. Why is there a need for this type of regulation?

[watcher]

Google is for net neutrality legislation because they don't want their site (or presumably any site) discriminated against on the web. But don't they allow "priority" listings on their search engine for web sites that are willing to pay a fee? I don't see how that's much different than an ISP charging Google a fee for priority bandwidth IF they choose to pay it. If they don't pay, they'll still have access to the wires, they just won't go at the same speed as those who pay for priority throughput.

[John Rice]

Net Neutrality is nothing more than the next attempt by pro-government special interests to seize control of an independent entity that is thriving in a free market environment. It is frightening that these pro-government folks are still pushing their communist agenda even after the great failures of the Soviet Union and the Camere Rouge government in Cambodia. It unfortunate that these folks ignore that we consumers can, and will, do all the regulation that is necessary through the marketplace. The Internet has been an unbridled success to date not because of heavy-handed, top-down government dictum, but rather because a free market allowing for innovation and advancement.

[stevens33]

I'd be awful glad to see this non-issue go away. People need to stop playing up something that isn't even a real problem.

[tpwk47]

I agree with Stevens on this. One of the reasons the public has not been interested in this issue is because the gloom and doom predicitons of those clamoring for governmental regulation have yet to come to pass. Google is interested in this legislation because it stands to help their bottom line. But, as we've seen in their willingness to trample the freedoms of Chinese citizens, Google hardly has the people in mind.

[MRT]

Government involvement in the internet is just not necessary. There is currently nothing that nedds to be regulated. ISPs spending money and developingnew services has been a vital part of the ever-growing internet. The only people determining whether these new services are necessary are the consumers on all levels. The internet has regulated itself through the companies and consumers for years, there is no need to change.

[SouthernCalLiving!]

I agree with everyone here at how much of a "non issue" this is. It's very frustrating to see the government wasting time on net neutrality when there are legitimate problems facing this country that need to be addressed. Like the saying goes "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"

[Husky74]

So true SoCal - the only thing we need to fix is our national strategy in promoting broadband usage and infrastructure, so that we can keep up with the rest of the world in a global economy. And I think we can all agree that legislation will only serve to hold us back even further.