COLUMN: Tin foil hats and net neutrality

Network neutrality is a sham issue that deserves to be put to the violent death of all such faux rallying cries. After a great deal of research and after interviewing Frannie Wellings, government relations manager of FreePress, I have found nothing to base the charge that evil big business is plotting the demise of the Internet and with it the free world.

What is clear from studying the issue is that the push for network neutrality is being driven by regressive politics and paranoia. These can be summarized by three components.

The first is the theory of the stupid consumer, the belief that the consumer lacks the motivation, intelligence, or moral wherewithal to advocate for their own interests in the marketplace. Basically, consumers are too stupid to realize they are getting the shaft and they need the benevolence of a federal agency to make sure consumer's values are respected (usually without even having to consult with consumers to know what those values are).

The second is that of perennial suspicion of any corporation. Usually when an entire group is generalized by the actions of a small minority, it is called stereotyping. When the group being stereotyped is corporations, it is called "progressive politics." Corporations are evil by definition, so they must not be allowed any freedom. In short, it's the legislative codification of rank bigotry.

The last is that corporations exist solely to stick it to consumers. Supply and demand is cast aside as an archaic concept. There is no such thing as a free exchange, there is only the continuous attempt by big business to pillage the countryside. The fact that Internet service providers have shown no inclination to start regulating what Web sites their consumers are seeing doesn't matter. They'll do it eventually because they hate society and their board members weren't loved enough by their mommies.

Never mind that it was corporations that built the Internet into what it is today. If it was left up to the government, we'd still be using Gopher. Ironically, up until about ten years ago Internet service providers exercised complete control over what services were available and what merchants you have access to online. That model was abandoned by the very same corporations that are now demonized. No consumer wanted it, advertisers stopped paying for it and it fell apart. The eminent return of a business model that was trashed a decade ago is absurd. It was Internet service providers that led the charge to open the floodgates, not the government and not partisan organizations.

The fact that the net neutrality debate is being driven by militant left-wing organizations makes the entire proposal suspect. Having attended FreePress events, I know their definition of a free media is one where society universally accepts and believes the regressive political agenda. If the Electronic Frontier Foundation were pushing this, or another organization that has some credentials in technology, the debate would have credibility. The fact that the organizations pushing this are purely partisan smacks of a political agenda.

The net neutrality debate is nothing more than the attempt to build a bogeyman and then demand the government do something about it. I'd prefer my congressmen deal with real problems instead of invented nightmares.