Wednesday, April 26, 2006

The following is in response to the MoveOn.org PAC's recent Save the Internet campaign:

Dear MoveOn.org,

I am a MoveOn.org supporter that has financially supported the PAC, openly shared the information that you provide via your email notifications and maintain a circle of friends that do the same (including volunteer work during election cycles).

That being said, I wanted to share my thoughts on your "Save the Internet" campaign. I agree with many of the points about how openness and neutrality towards Internet services and content should be key goals for everyone.

However, I do NOT agree that the pending legislation is even a remotely good idea.

The Internet is hugely successful – as witnessed by your organization’s very existence. Why is that? Basically, it is because it is open and flexible to “market” pressures. I placed quotes around the word “market”, because not all innovations and successes are actually capitalistic endeavors, but each idea’s success is predicated on the ability of the initiator to try something new.

My issue with the “net neutrality” approach is that it requires regulation and enforcement to work. A different approach, one that I argue takes a more holistic view of the problem, would be to continue focusing on the removal of monopolistic “ownership” of last mile” connectivity. Once that monopoly is destroyed, you have an open market that will allow customers to decide which service they want to subscribe to.

If the monopoly is broken, ISP’s that decided to manipulate, limit or control the types of content that travel over their network will be sufficiently rewarded or punished by virtue of consumer choice. From the technical perspective, we would see technology itself innovate around any ISP’s efforts to limit a user’s options. This is the best option for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

Chip Childers

Labels: policy