The fatal flaws in Lessig-Scott net neutrality editorial sermon

Self-appointed Information Commons messiah Larry Lessig and his Free Press acolyte Ben Scott, advance a slew of "beliefs" that they assiduously proselytize wherever they can gather an audience.

• The latest sermon from the information commons church, was published by the San Francisco Chronicle: Public must fight to maintain net neutrality.
• First, in it they assert a core belief in their first sentence: "The Internet is an engine of economic growth and innovation because of a simple principle: net neutrality..."
  • They conveniently ignore that the bipartisan law of the land has been the opposite of what they say about the Internet since passage of the 1996 Telecom Act: "It is the policy of the United States... to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet...unfettered by federal or state regulation."
    • So the core premise of their belief-system does not square with the facts or the law.
    • Why was there no mention of net neutrality's essentialness before Lessig's protege Professor Tim Wu coined the term in 2002?
    • It's because they are trying to rewrite Internet history, to be one of regulation and government control and not the true historical progression which was successive promotion of free market competition through de-regulation.
      • As I have said before, the Internet is the greatest de-regulation success story of all time.
• The second fatal flaw in the movement's belief system, is the parade of horribles that they have said would happen over the last few years -- that simply have not happened. Internet freedom has not ended as they warned. 
  • Literally thousands of ISPs have delivered trillions of Internet communications over the years without significant incident.
  • The movement has identified a few alleged net neutrality problems, which represent an infinitisimal part of the Internet and its free market communications.
• The fatal third flaw is that they propose the obviously erroneous logic of -- specific to general. They propose that because they have identified infintisimal examples of Internet problems that we should change United States policy towards the Internet from the "free market that presently exists for the Internet" to a government regulated and controlled Internet.
  • This arguably is one of the biggest over-reaches in the young Internet age.
• The fourth fatal flaw is the information commons movement's total silence on the downsides or unitntended consequences of socializing the Internet and appointing the government as the referree and controller of all that goes on on the Internet.
  • They are silent about that because they know the huge disruption and uproar that regulation of the internet would cause and they would just assume not have that "open" discussion.

Like a cult, the information commons movement led by Lessig and Google, believe what they believe no matter what the facts, cost or harm that they could cause.