Broadband Regulation: Will Congress Neuter the Net?

BROADBAND REGULATION: WILL CONGRESS NEUTER THE NET?
[SOURCE: Heritage Foundation, AUTHOR: James L. Gattuso]
[Commentary] Gattuso states that “net neutrality” regulation would be both unnecessary and harmful: 1) By actively managing traffic flow, network owners could use scarce Internet capacity more effi­ciently. At the same time, traffic fees could spur some much-needed investment in broadband networks. 2) Fears that network owners would abuse their discretion by impeding or even blocking services and Web sites that they disfavor are unfounded. In today’s competitive broadband market, network abuse would quickly send consumers to another provider. Moreover, if a network owner somehow does abuse its power, existing competition law -- with its decades of precedent -- is more than sufficient to address the problem. 3) Neutrality regulation would hurt competition. If all providers were forced to act alike, network owners’ ability to distinguish their services from one another -- and smaller networks’ abil­ity to challenge established rivals -- would be reduced. 4) Imposing a new, separate set of rules on the Internet would invite endless uncertainty and litigation. Inevitably, regulators would be drawn into years-long, lobbyist-driven policy quag­mires as to whether this or that action is allowed or banned and what prices can be charged. This would be a bonanza for lobbyists and lawyers but would hurt innovation, investment, and Internet users. Gattuso concludes, "Advocates of neutrality regulation argue that the future of the Internet is at issue in this debate. They are correct. This is why such regulation of the Inter­net should be rejected."
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/bg1941.cfm