The US shouldn't require net neutrality.

Tim Wu, the guy who coined the term "net neutrality," notes the importance of "differentiat[ing] sharply between the principle of network neutrality and a network neutrality law." This debate isn't about the principle of net neutrality. This debate is about whether the US should adopt a net neutrality law. I'm not arguing against net neutrality as a principle. I'm arguing that the US shouldn't adopt a net neutrality law. Con's arguments are aimed against banning net neutrality. I agree with Con that banning net neutrality is bad for competition and small businesses. There is no debate there. The debate here is whether net neutrality should be required, not whether it should be banned. 1. Con says "net neutrality stimulates competition" because, "if we ban net neutrality the big ISPs ... would be able to block competitor's websites. That way the big companies would be unable to compete with each other because people could not access more than one big service without paying more, and therefore there would be no need for competing." First, as discussed above, this debate isn't about banning net neutrality. Con's argument doesn't support adoption of a net neutrality law. Con's argument only supports the status quo -- allowing net neutrality but not requiring it. I agree with Con that banning net neutrality would be bad for the economy. What I argue for is less regulation, not more regulation. A ban on net neutrality, like a net neutrality requirement, is more regulation. Either way, that's bad for the economy. What we need is less government intrusion on the Internet, as I explained in the previous round. Second, the idea that ISPs can block competitor's websites without a net neutrality law is incorrect. As I explained in the last round, the antitrust laws prohibit anticompetitive business practices, including such discriminatory behavior that harms competition and consumers. Take a look at the Wikipedia for a brief summary of the antitrust laws: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Section 2 of the Sherman Act doesn't allow companies to harm consumers or competition by using their monopoly power to raise prices or exclude competition. Third, Con's claim that "big companies would be unable to compete with each other" is false, even if we did ban net neutrality, as there would still be many ways for companies to compete with each other. Pricing, Internet speed, Internet reliability, types of discrimination, geography -- all these would still be open to competition. To be clear, I'm not saying we should ban net neutrality. I'm just saying Con is wrong that banning net neutrality would make it impossible for companies to compete. 2. Con says "if we ban net neutrality internet providers will be able to pick which sites show up first, and ban or block websites that they don't want their customers to see." As a result, Con argues, "small businesses will not be top priority on these providers' lists and may even be banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off the ground." First, again this debate is not about banning net neutrality. Con argues against banning net neutrality, and I agree with Con that banning net neutrality is bad for small businesses. Con's arguments actually support my point, which is that more regulation harms the economy and small businesses. I argue for less regulation -- no net neutrality law, either requiring net neutrality or banning net neutrality. Second, in the absence of a net neutrality requirement, ISPs can offer customers faster or slower lanes of traffic. As I explained last round, this is good for competition, as it gives incentive to create faster lanes for which ISPs can charge higher prices. Prohibiting ISPs from discriminating in procompetitive ways (a patient's heart monitor versus a music download, for example) disincentivizes the creation of faster, more reliable Internet service. Third, Con's claim that small businesses will be "banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off the ground" is false. Again, such exclusionary practices are covered by the antitrust laws. There is no need to create rigid net neutrality laws to cover a perceived risk which is already dealt with under antitrust in a more nuanced, flexible, fact-based way. 3. Con says "if there were to be no net neutrality, high class providers such as Comcast and Verizon could sell special treatment to their favorite web companies like Google and Netflix, and charge extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds." Again, those "fast speeds" might not be developed in the absence of incentives to develop them. The ability to charge premium prices for faster speeds is what gives ISPs incentive to create faster, better, more reliable Internet services. The US Postal Service example is directly on point: no one has any problem with Express Mail (which costs more). Why should there by any problem with faster Internet lanes, for which companies can charge more. Always keep in mind that business practices which are legitimately anticompetitive -- practices that harm consumers or competition -- are already covered under the antitrust laws, so there's no need to create another layer of regulation, especially a rule so rigid and categorical as requiring net neutrality across-the-board, regardless of the circumstances and potential pro-competitive benefits. 4. Con says a net neutrality law is necessary to protect our privacy. But that's simply not true. What we need are stronger privacy laws, not a rigid net neutrality law. Con says that in the absence of net neutrality laws, ISPs have the "power to decode any decryptions placed by their customers." But even if net neutrality laws exist, ISPs can still decode decryptions placed by their customers. Net neutrality proponents -- not Con since he didn't argue this point specifically -- argue that without net neutrality protections, ISPs will block privacy services. But like I've argued elsewhere, that sort of misconduct is covered by the antitrust laws. We don't need net neutrality laws to protect us from exclusionary, anticompetitive business practices. The only purpose of net neutrality laws is to avoid a perceived risk -- but that perceived risk is already covered by current laws. I direct attention again to FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell's comment 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] All net neutrality cases thus far have been resolved in favor of consumers under current law. We don't need more regulation to protect consumers, competition, or the Internet.