Net neutrality: Stupid is as stupid does

John McCain, arguably the most nontechnical of all U.S. senators (which is quite a feat), has officially thrown his hat into the anti-Net-neutrality ring and introduced a bill similar to the amendment sponsored by Sen. Kay Bailey-Hutchinson a few weeks ago. This bill would essentially remove the FCC’s control over network carriers and ISPs, preventing any form of Net neutrality regulation, and in keeping with the trend of titling bills the exact opposite of their intent, it’s called the “Internet Freedom Act.” Like Bailey-Hutchinson’s amendment, it flies in the face of common sense and the service of government for the people.

In fact, the arguments against Net neutrality are so ridiculous as to be funny — if those spouting them weren’t so serious.

[ InfoWorld’s Paul Venezia also offers an open letter to the enemies of Net neutrality. | Keep up on the day’s tech news headlines with InfoWorld’s Today’s Headlines: First Look newsletter. ]

Take, for instance, this quote from Barbara Esbin, senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation:

I remain concerned … that the FCC is poised to take intrusive action into a well-functioning Internet ecosystem without either the demonstrated need or clear legal authority to do so. I know of no empirical evidence suggesting that the openness of the Internet that we all value is under threat today, or is likely to be under threat tomorrow. In the absence of evidence of market failure or demonstrable consumer harms, the costs of government intervention are more likely to outweigh the benefits.

This is basically the same thing as saying that you shouldn’t apply the brakes on your car until you’ve already driven over the cliff. You shouldn’t worry about the fellow pointing a gun at your head because he hasn’t shot you yet. Even better, you shouldn’t go to the doctor until you’re dead. And yes, Ms. Esbin, there have been many examples of ISPs interfering with network traffic. They backed down when they were caught, but their frameworks for blocking certain traffic are ready for action at the drop of a hat.

Most people just don’t seem to get that the FCC’s proposal is essentially a confirmation of the status quo. I would object to any organization — much less the government — that attempted to control, restrict, or otherwise impair the Internet as a end-to-end network. But what the FCC has proposed wouldn’t introduce new restrictions. It would instead formalize the Internet as an open, unrestricted network, exactly as it always has been, and is today. That’s it.

But that hasn’t stopped quite a few people from declaring this an attempt by the government to control our lives. If you can stomach it, check out this clip of Glenn Beck telling us Net neutrality is the work of the evil socialist empire. Let me be crystal clear: Not a single statement in that clip has any factual basis whatsoever. In fact, he’s arguing in favor of Net neutrality without even realizing it. If Beck, Esbin, McCain, et al. seriously believe what they’re saying, may God have mercy on their souls.

I’m not sure how to deal with that level of weapons-grade ignorance, so I will choose to reject it out of hand. You can give the dim-witted only so much attention.

Another example of how people simply don’t get this might be the smaller Web sites and blogs that are vehemently anti-Net neutrality. They are holding this stance while at the same time apparently unaware that they cannot win, even if Net neutrality loses. Because in that instance, their corner of the Internet will basically disappear, held behind the protection rackets run by the big ISPs. They’re arguing for their own demise.

Yes, the level of idiocy surrounding this issue is breathtaking and deadly serious. You can bet your bottom dollar that if this round of Net neutrality regulations is lost, the ISPs will jump on it with both feet. This isn’t a situation where it can come up for debate somewhere down the line. This has become the last stand: Either Net neutrality becomes law or we lose a neutral network completely and probably forever.

So the next time you have a problem with your computer and find the answer on somebody’s blog or a small forum, realize that without a neutral network you might not be able to access that site and that answer. Imagine explaining to the CFO why you must now pay Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and every small-market ISP a pile of cash per year to have your large business Web site accessible to your customers.

The next time you Google for a few different chicken tetrazzini recipes, realize that without a neutral network you probably wouldn’t be able to access most of them. In fact, even Google may not work since you could be forcibly redirected to Bing due to an exclusivity agreement with your ISP. Think of your small-business Web site that would basically become useless because nobody could get there. Think of the genius that develops a new protocol but can’t use or even test it because the network doesn’t know what it is and discards the packets.

And think of a teenager who’s interested in computing and wants to know more about Linux or programming or how to build a computer, trying to access sites like kernel.org, perl.org, CPAN, or any of a million other sites devoted to furthering the very nature of computing. They exist with content contributed from all over the world, and they run either at a loss or as a nonprofit. Without Net neutrality, that kid won’t be able to access those sites, because the network won’t let him or her without extorting a fee they can’t pay. That’s beyond tragedy.

It’s time to pick up the phone, send an e-mail, or even snail mail a letter (if you suspect e-mail is beyond the grasp of your local legislator). If lawmakers don’t hear from you, they’ll simply listen to the big ISPs and repeat their drivel. And we’ll wake up to a pale reflection of the Internet we once knew.

This story, “Net neutrality: Stupid is as stupid does,” was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Follow the latest developments in Net neutrality at InfoWorld.com.