Brent Skorup

[Commentary] Don’t believe the arguments pushed by ‘network neutrality’ activists: The government does more harm than good by interfering in the World Wide Web. Any student of Federal Communications Commission history knows roughly how this story will end if the rules are not repealed. The dominant Web and Internet providers will muddle through, perhaps more profitable but also more sclerotic and risk-averse. Their armies of attorneys, many of whom used to work at the FCC, will closely read the thousands of pages of orders, declaratory rulings, and press releases to anticipate shifting legal winds. Smaller providers and mom-and-pop tech startups, focused on customers and services rather than compliance, will be left in the dark.

[Brent Skorup is an attorney and a research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University]

[Commentary] The outrage over the Federal Communications Commission’s attempt to write new open Internet rules has caught many by surprise, and probably Chairman Tom Wheeler, as well.

The rumored possibility of the FCC authorizing broadband “fast lanes” draws most complaints and animus. Many net neutrality proponents would like to smear all priority traffic as unjust and exploitative. This is unfortunate and a bit ironic because one of the most transformative communications developments -- cable VoIP -- is a prioritized IP service.

There are other IP-based services that are only economically feasible if jitter, latency and slow speed are minimized. Prioritized traffic takes several forms, but it could enhance these services: VoIP, cloud-hosted virtual desktops, TV, gaming, teleconferencing, telemedicine, teleteaching, etc.

[Skorup is Research Fellow, Technology Policy Program, Mercatus Center at George Mason University]