The Sunday Providence Journal carried my op-ed on net neutrality:
Really, with what other service do people insist that customers’ only options must be everything or nothing? Should we all have to have the same gym memberships? Should every car have to have the same engine and the same sound system?
A preference for an all-or-nothing industry, as with health care, tends to mean that the advocates want to be able to control the “all” so they can control our lives. Auton and Holden probably have no such intent, but following their suggestion would clear a path for those who do.
One comment, from Mike Berry illustrates the challenge of political discourse these days:
Hard to follow the logic here.
Mandatory free and open access cannot possibly restrict what ISPs sell us. It does the opposite.
Internet access is not like gym memberships or auto service. It should be a utility in which, yes, we ALL get the same thing!!
Notice the immediate logical inconsistency in Berry’s response. On the one hand, he says net neutrality “cannot possibly restrict what ISPs sell us”; on the other hand, he insists that ISPs should sell everybody the exact same thing.
Objectively, it appears that Berry is tangled up in the talking points. Proponents of net neutrality use phrases like “mandatory free and open access” because that implies more access not less, but using a talking point doesn’t mean it’s accurate. Maybe if Internet access were some boundless resource that could simply be plucked for free and distributed without limit, but that isn’t the case.
The mention of utilities is also instructive. Think about your electric bill. Regulators and activists are working to ensure that you cannot get electricity from coal while they force you to pay extra for politically favored energy like wind.
In that case, we’re only talking about how the product is generated. With the Internet, the control of the “utility” would implicitly cover what we receive. We’ll quickly find that disfavored content — the coal of the Internet — is blocked while we wind up with government fees on our bills to fund content or services to which we object.