LINDA WERTHEIMER, host:

The Senate Commerce Committee is examining network neutrality. That's the idea that every Internet content provider, regardless of size or wealth, gets the same access to the worldwide web.

Computer related companies like Microsoft and eBay want net neutrality written into law. Telecom companies, such as Verizon and AT&T, are opposed to that. This morning, we have the first of two commentaries on net neutrality.

Scott Cleland is the chairman of Net Competition.org, which is funded by telecom, wireless, and cable companies.

Mr. SCOTT CLELAND (and CEO of the Precursor Group): So what is net neutrality? It's really a debate over dueling visions of the future of the Internet.

Net neutrality proponents worry that telecom, wireless, and cable companies might one day favor their own content and applications, over others. They want Congress to pass a new law to ban that practice, by regulating the price of broadband service and the way it's sold.

Now, net competition proponents like me, believe that the best way to guard a free and open Internet is to maintain the free and open competition that exists today. Not create a new government-monitored, socialized Internet.

First, net neutrality is really a misnomer. It's really just special interest legislation, dressed up to sound less self-serving. Did you know Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo are lobbying for net neutrality? If they're successful, they'll get a special, low, government-set price for the bandwidth they use, while everyone else, consumers, businesses and government, will have to pay a competitive price for bandwidth. Doesn't sound very neutral to me.

Second, net neutrality would be 180 degree reversal of the government's highly successful policy to promote competition and not regulate the Internet. Amazingly, the proponents of this radical change in policy don't even have any real evidence of a problem; only unsubstantiated assertions about hypothetical problems.

Finally, net neutrality legislation would be a lousy trade-off for consumers. The consumer benefits would be small, but the cost to consumers would be huge. Price regulation would destroy any economic incentive to innovate and invest in the private networks that make up the Internet. Over time, we would end up with a slower Internet; and higher broadband prices and taxes for consumers; less broadband choice; and slower broadband deployment to all Americans. And it would also mean less privacy for all Americans, as net neutrality would require more government monitoring and surveillance of Internet traffic.

In short, don't be fooled by the superficial appeal of the net neutrality legislation. The idea is rotten to the core, because it's a heavy-handed fix to a non-existent problem, and it's a lousy cost-benefit trade-off for consumers.

WERTHEIMER: Scott Cleland is the chairman of NetCompetition.org, which is funded by the telecom industry.

Tomorrow we'll hear another perspective, Craig Newmark, the Craig of Craigslist. He says net neutrality is crucial to the future of the Internet.

(Soundbite of music)

You're listening to MORNING EDITION from NPR News.

Copyright © 2006 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio.

Comments

 

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.