Net Neutrality: Because Anything John McCain Suggests Relating To Computers, I Suggest You Do The Opposite

How many times does the average college student search the internet every day using their preferred search engine (Google, Yahoo!, or even ...shudder...Bing)? 25? 50? What about text messages? The same number? What if these commodities were priced in the same manner? Depending on your “plan”, you would receive a certain number of searches for free (or none if you don't want to cough up an extra fee) and pay for each search beyond that number. Sound terrible? That is only one of the unlikely, but possible restrictions internet service providers could come up with the increase profits should net neutrality regulations fail.

On Thursday, the FCC unanimously voted to “formalize net neutrality guidelines”, but profit minded cable companies were not far behind, having already recruited some Senate leaders to their cause of maximizing their profit margins. Senator John McCain immediately introduced the “Internet Freedom Act.” This is the same John McCain who admitted to having little to no knowledge of how to operate a computer. Apparently he is passionate about freedom and the internet. However, it appears his vision of a free internet is one where companies are free to discriminate among traffic and users based on what kind of internet service plan they have. One of McCain and his supporters' arguments holds that net neutrality regulation will stifle innovation and competition.

Maybe I should take a minute to explain net neutrality to the 'non-Engadget Reader types' out there. When the phrase “net neutrality regulation” is used, it refers to the idea of the government passing legislation that forbids internet service providers (ISP's) from discriminating who gets to see what content on the internet. They do not change anything, they simply are a pre-emptive protection against future changes which would limit individual freedom to use the internet. McCain's bill, the Internet Freedom Act, attempts to take away the ability of the FCC to ensure those protections. As PC World Magazine puts it,

"According to the text of the McCain bill, the FCC "shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services." Isn't that what the FCC does? Isn't that sort of like introducing a bill to prohibit the Treasury from printing money, or a bill to prohibit the IRS from collecting taxes?"

In this context, it seems as though McCain ISP's want the FCC to not do its job simply so that future profit sources will not dry up before they have been tapped. While their arguments make anyone mildly tech savvy quiver, there are examples of internet regulation around the world where we can look for answers.

A casual glance at China, a country where internet regulations exist in full force, reveals a stark difference from McCain's position. Sure, there is new media innovation in China. Unfortunately, a large portion of that goes to simply avoiding the regulations put in place by internet regulators (in the case of China, regulations put in place by the Government). Innovation is essentially wasted on artificial problems that we simply do not have in the United States because of our free or “neutral” internet. This is the opposite of what opponents of net neutrality argue. Instead of creating new internet services because there is no limit on what can be done, web talent would likely spend time trying to simply return themselves and other to the state of the internet we have now.

Innovative new services, such as Twitter and Google's communication suite (Wave, Voice, etc) would simply not have developed in an environment where internet users are not able to use their data connection in any way they see fit. Skype and Facebook are officially blocked in China (though both have many users through proxy services), and Twitter's freedom ebbs and flows depending on the feeling of the government. These services would have had no incentive to be created if there was the chance of arbitrarily blocking them from public use.

The United States has always been a country that has prided itself on the freedoms it grants its citizens. To enact legislation that takes away the ability of the United States to ensure freedom is contrary to the idea which has enabled innovation to grow in this country and directly creates jobs and creativity, as opposed to blocking it.

EDIT: October 27 2009:

The Daily Show yesterday also poked fun at the idea of John McCain introducing technology legislation (and it's inherent 'non-free' ideas). Net Neutrality section starts right after the first commercial break.