The US shouldn't require net neutrality.

No one would propose that the U.S. Postal Service be prohibited from offering Express Mail because a "fast lane" mail service is "unfair," "undemocratic," or "bad for the economy." Yet that's exactly what net neutrality would do for Internet services. In a free and open market, incentives exist to create premium services, with faster, guaranteed delivery quality, for things like medical monitoring which require higher reliability. Of course, suppliers could be expected to charge higher prices for these premium services. Such discrimination is procompetitive. Blocking premium services in the name of neutrality, on the other hand, can have the unintended consequence of blocking premium services from which consumers could benefit. The net neutrality debate turns on the distinction between procompetitive discrimination and anticompetitive discrimination. Net neutrality condemns both alike. Antitrust laws only condemn antitompetitive discrimination, so I for antitrust enforcement, which is more flexible, nuanced, and fact-based than a rigid net neutrality regime. It simply makes sense to allow a network to favor traffic from a patient's heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. It also makes sense to allow network operators to restrict traffic that is downright harmful, such as viruses, worms, and spam. Antitrust laws allow these procompetitive benefits while also prohibiting anticompetitive discrimination. 1. An unregulated Internet is better than a regulated Internet. The Internet has always been a free and open market, shaped by intense competition and rampant growth. Costs and consumer demand interact to set price, entry costs are low, and entrepreneurs have the latitude to experiment with new and different business models. And as a free and open market, the Internet has thrived. In the absence of heavy government regulation, and "due in large part to private investment and market-driven innovation, broadband in America has improved considerably in the last decade. More Americans are online at faster speeds than ever before." [1] Rigid net neutrality laws would change that. Instead of allowing the free market to guide investment dollars where needed, and allowing businesses to act based on the best use of scarce resources like bandwidth, the government would dictate many of these decisions, chilling competition, growth, and innovation. Historical data backs these claims up, showing that the less regulated broadband platform out-performs. Cable modem service, unburdened by "open access" mandates, spurted out to an early advantage. Then, when network sharing mandates on telephone networks were abruptly reduced, DSL surged. When DSL was regulated, network growth stagnated, but as soon as it was deregulated, DSL deployment took off. [2] Network sharing mandates were also imposed, and then eliminated, on fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) technology. Prior to the FCC's decision to eliminate fiber network "open access" rules," there was virtually no FTTH technology in the US. After deregulation, substantial investments were made, and now more than six million households subscribe to the Internet through ultra-fast fiber connections [3] 2. Net neutrality doesn't distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices. Entrepreneurs often experiment with new and different business models -- e.g. prioritize network traffic -- to lower prices and improve customer experience. For example, Lariat Wireless, a small ISP in Wyoming, forbids its customers from operating servers, to reduce network congestion and improve the overall experience for their users. Brett Glass, the CEO, explains: "most Internet users would not know what a server was if it bit them, and they have no problem uploading content to a Web site such as YouTube for distribution. This means customers that do need to operate a server could obtain that capability by paying a bit more to cover the additional cost." Under a net neutrality regime, however, Lariat Wireless would be forced to shift "everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive, offer less value to consumers and especially less value to economically disadvantaged ones." [3] There are other examples. Universities that don't allow peer-to-peer file-sharing on their networks, for example. Or Virginia Broadband, which improves customer experience by prohibiting customers from "excessive" use of their network. Like Lariat Wireless, Virginia Broadband can offer quality Internet service at lower prices. The folks who benefit most are the "economically disadvantaged," and those who use the Internet sparingly. [4] Unregulated markets give entrepreneurs the latitude to experiment as such, producing procompetitive outcomes: more options, lower prices, and better quality services. A net neutrality requirement is a bad policy because it categorically condemns all discriminatory practices, without distinguishing the procompetitive from the anticompetitive. 3. Current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers and competition. Over more than 100 years, antitrust laws have developed to protect consumers from anticompetitive business practices -- monopolization, collusion, price-fixing, etc. The main development in the antitrust laws has been a movement away from categorical rules (stuff like "all monopolies are bad") towards a more nuanced case-by-case approach. Instead of condemning business practices per se, courts require proof of harm to consumers or competition first. This approach is more nuanced, fact-based, and flexible, as well as being better for the economy by giving entrepreneurs latitude to experiment. The net neutrality debate turns on the idea that there are bottlenecks on the Internet which allow network owners to exercise market power. For example, if a local telephone company has a monopoly in broadband access and it blocks broadband subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, that could harm both competition and consumers. But that's a classic antitrust issue. And under the antitrust laws, the above business practice would be illegal under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. You don't need further regulation to deal with anticompetitive discrimination on the Internet. Indeed, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell notes that "in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law." [6] There is simply no reason to prefer displacing the antitrust laws -- flexible, nuanced, fact-based enforcement -- with a rigid net neutrality regime. -- Net neutrality goes directly against most American consumers' values, such as competition, freedom of choice, and less government regulation. Evidence shows that the Internet has been marked by intense competition and rampant growth as a free and open market with light regulation. Historical data also suggests regulations stunt growth. All these reasons support antitrust enforcement over net neutrality regulations. References: [1] FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan 19 (Mar. 16, 2010), available at http://www.broadband.gov... [2] Thomas Hazlett and Joshua Wright, The Law and Economics of Net Neutrality (2012) [3] http:// www.ftthcouncil.org/en/content/the-growth-of-fiber-to-the-home [4] Ensuring Competition on the Internet: Net Neutrality and Antitrust: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop., Competition, and the Internet of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 55 (2011) [5] http://www.ntia.doc.gov... and http://vabb.com... [6] In re Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 FCC Rcd. 17,905 (2010)