I organized netcompetition.org on the belief and premise that as people learned more about the merits of the net neutrality debate, people would become increasingly turned off to the pro-net neutrality position. The thoughtful and informed policymaker and American is our best friend.
I have enjoyed seeing the steady back pedaling of net neutrality proponents as they have to abandon many of the more lame and false assertions they shouted from the rooftops earlier in the debate: for example they have had to concede: that the net isn't neutral now and never has been (i.e. Akami, spam and vrus filters, etc.); that networks must have the right to manage their networks (because arguing otherwise proved unreasonable and anti-quality of service); that the public Internet has always tiered both on the backbone and for access (with the slow lane of dial-up used by 35 million and the fast lane of broadband for used by another 37 million Americans); that net neutrality was in fact not universal in the U.S. as claimed (they since learned that NN hasn't applied to wireless since 1993, and never has applied to cable broadband or WiFi.); and that there are not lots of examples of problems (having to reach into Canada to find more than one example).
This is the record of a concept in intellectual and policy retreat. NN proponents still can't define the problem. Strip away the rhetoric and fear-mongering, and there really isn't much there there.
While I have no illusions that NN as an issue will fade away, I am heartened that as people learn more about the issue they increasingly take the net neutrality line with a grain of salt. Clearly when the House had a chance to learn about the issue more in depth, they strongly rejected NN 269-152. What we are seeing is that NN does not wear well over time in a substantive forum.
I was also very pleased to see that Andrew Cantor, a USA Today Columnist, switched from supporting NN to opposing it. He said "As I learn more, I realize that net neutrality - at least as its being tauted today -- is a bad idea." Kudos to Andrew for being thoughtful and open minded.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-06-15-net-neutrality-revisited_x.htm
I believe there will be many more Andrew Cantors switching sides from NN to net competition once they learn more and test if the widespread fear-mongering is actually true -- which it is not. On the merits, NN is a losing idea -- it is on the wrong side of the evidence, proven policy, technology change, market forces, and progress.
