Net neutrality sounds good, but it's worse

[Commentary] There’s nothing neutral about the Internet now. When Google caches its content around the world so that its stuff gets to you faster than its competitors, is that neutral? When Netflix buys - or perhaps one day builds - its own, faster private network to take its movies from its servers to your ISP so it can get a competitive advantage, is that neutral?

In fact, by denying their competitors the opportunity to buy faster transit on the Internet -- at a posted price that anybody can pay if they want -- neutrality makes the Net less competitive, not more. The only thing neutral about neutrality is the price these big websites pay -- under Netflix's "strong neutrality" proposal, it would pay nothing to get access to you. And that means that you pay more than you should.

There's an important agenda out there for working families -- health care; a livable minimum wage; a fairer, progressive tax system; and better access to training and learning for the jobs of the future. But the idea that neutrality is part of that agenda is what the wolf said to the sheep while it was putting on their clothes.

[Ehrlich served in the Clinton Administration as Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs]