On Net Neutrality

   The debate over Net Neutrality is taking place below the radar because of the shear volume of words being dedicated to health care, but it is an important one that needs some more attention.  The Republican stance can be summed up in five words "no government regulation of the Internet".  I understand that this fits one of the core conservative principles, small government, and I don't disagree with it in general.  The problem is I think this issue is far too complex to be boiled down to a five word answer.  As I've considered it more, and I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert, there appear to be a few other issues involved that speak to the future of conservatism.

- The Republican argument is that the government should not be able to tell ISPs how they can do business.  The free market should be allowed to work and these businesses should be left alone to make the decisions they feel are necessary.  Again, I have no argument with the basic principle, but is the ISP market truly a free market?  How many Americans actually have alternatives when it comes to choosing an ISP?  Even for those Americans who have a choice, are the alternatives really apples to apples?  I'm one of the lucky few who can choose between a cable provider and FIOS.  This empowers me to switch providers if I feel one of them is making business decisions that I don't like.  Most people don't have this luxury.

- In our quest to keep the ISP market "free" are we potentially restricting the market for content on the Internet?  One need only look at the cable/satellite television market to see what happens when the people who control the delivery mechanism begin developing their own content.  Time Warner, COMCAST, and the rest have clearly taken actions intended to promote their own content and stifle competition.  Since they are doing this in a market that is similar to that of the ISPs (i.e. not as free as an economist would like it to be due to the restrictive options available to many consumers) they are able to warp the content market in ways that limit the choice of consumers.  Thus the issue of Net Neutrality appears to force conservatives to make a choice...we can have either a free market for the ISPs or we can have a free market for the content providers.  It's hard for me to think of a way we can have both, and the current approach appears to put conservatives in the difficult position of choosing one market over another.

- One of the prime conservative complaints about the recent bailout of the car companies was that business is not risk free.  Companies make decisions.  If they work out they make money, if they don't then they fail.  Are we in danger of having this get thrown in our face on the issue of Net Neutrality?  The ISPs and wireless carriers had a business plan.  Spend money to provide the highest speed internet service we can so people can actually do things like download music, watch tv, play games, etc.  When people see what can be done they will want to pay for this service.  The problem now is that the plan worked too well.  More people want to take advantage of the power of the internet than the system can accommodate.  Are we allowing them to pull a "bait and switch"?  Certainly we're not bailing them out with government dollars, but could we not look at the McCain bill as an effort to protect them from the consequences of their business decisions?

  Again, in an effort to stave off some vitriol, let me say that I agree with the basic approach the Republicans are taking.  I agree that government regulation should be limited to that which is absolutely necessary.  The issue I have is with taking a complicated problem and reducing it to one that is simple.  There is danger in that approach because it ignores the consequences of the decisions made.  I'm interested in the thoughts of fellow conservatives on the issue of Net Neutrality that go beyond the five word answer.  I hope I've come to the right place.