First up is Karl Bode at TechDirt with a warning: Wireless Usage Caps (And Creative Abuses Of Them) Are The New Global Net Neutrality Battlefield.
“So while neutrality supporters here in the States are generally pleased to see that FCC boss Tom Wheeler is embracing Title II based rules, the discussion doesn’t end there. In fact, it’s only just beginning. Regulators truly interested in protecting net neutrality need to be every bit as tenacious, clever and intelligent as carrier executives who tirelessly look for creative new ways to abuse their uncompetitive telecom fiefdoms. Given the regulatory quality in most countries, that’s a damn tall order, but in the all-too-common absence of truly healthy and competitive broadband markets, there’s really no other choice.”
The warning is that the struggle will continue no matter what. The assumption on which this is based is “in the all-too-common absence of truly healthy and competitive broadband markets.” TechDirt represents the Left in this issue and they clearly illustrate the ‘attitude’ and tactics that are commonly found on that side of the issue.
William Teach at Right Wing News explains Net Neutrality: A Solution In Search Of A Problem (That Will Create More Problems) as an example on the other side of the debate.
“by turning the Internet into yet another heavily regulated industry, the government will not only stifle innovation and investment, but will be in a position to pick winners and losers, rather than as it is now, where competition reigns to pick winners and losers. No, the Internet is not perfect, nor are the companies involved. But, do you think it will get better, do you think minor problems will be solved, especially those problems that pretty much only exist within the minds of people who are saying “this could happen!!!!!!!!!”, by making it a highly regulated utility? “
The fact is that the proponents for regulation assume without evidence and without any significant support that I’net services are “uncompetitive telecom fiefdoms” and do this by creation of conspiracy and denial of economic realities. The basic problem is highlighted by the secrecy by which the FCC’s proposal is being held. The public will not know what is in it until after the FCC votes on it. That secrecy is part and parcel of manufactured presumptions, ad hominem argument, an army of straw men, and censorship of an questions or alternative ideas.
The persistence in trying to foist this ideology on the public, that of government knows best and much be in control, is evident and explicit by Bode. As long as that exists, and honest debate to determine real world actions of a productive nature will be difficult.