It looks obvious

I expressed in the past my concern with the regulatory efforts aimed to protect the so called "Net Neutrality".  Those who advocate for regulatory protection argue that without the government protection the companies that control the Internet infrastructure will discriminate the packets traffic in favor of companies that will pay premiums, or worse against their competitors.

Inviting the government to regulate an industry isn’t a new phenomena. However past experience should warn us that the government, once involved, will not - and cannot - limits its scope of intervention to the original intentions of those who ask its involvement. 

It happened in the past and its bound to happen again, once public money involve - the public will have a say. Concerned moral groups, parents organizations, policies advocates and many others will start demanding that since their money is invested, through the government’s budget, they should have control to limit or promote content. And therefore a victory in a battle to protect the neutrality from the "evil corporations" will results in the expansion of the decency act to the internet.

Recent history also teaching us that once the government is involve it will act to preserve the situation that requires it involvement. Artificially maintaining status of scarcity,  maintaining funds as a political payout although their original purpose no longer exist and creating barriers on technological development so it will suit existing regulations, instead of modifying the regulations to the new reality - are only few possible examples. 

However the damage doesn’t end with government barriers. Once in place that state of the network will not depend on the market and the consumers power but on laws and lobbying. Unfortunately after many years of government control over the telecom market the incumbents, those who are the source of the net neutrality advocates, are masters in lobbying and political manipulations. And once in place those companies will not need to fear the markets and consumers but limited numbers of politicians that are already attentive to similar lobbying efforts.

But if not the government, who will protect the network? The short answer is : common sense.

Consumers have more options today, when regulations being removed, than when regulations were protecting the consumers. The competition between the cables and the traditional phone companies with other players, like BPL, joining the competition giving consumers more choices - and ultimately more power to get better service.

But the consumers has an allies, a powerfully ally, the content companies. Companies like Google, Microsoft and other will be able to use their market power to effectively creates more business options that will protect their interest. It isn’t an accident that company like Google investing in alternative methods, like BPL. Therefore if an old Telecom company will try to enforce premiums, or simply slow down the service of its competitors, it will gain only a short term advantage. Such move will turn pretty fast into a Pyrrhic victory and will cost substantial market share lose.

And the choice is pretty clear:

The choice seems pretty clear to me.

Technorati Tags: Net Neutrality - The Free Market - Government Regulations - Telecom - BPL