Gary’s excellent synopsis of the Netneut debate points out that:

In that sense, network neutrality aims to prevent anticompetitive conduct; a worthy goal.

But while preventing anticompetitive conduct sounds sensible enough, it is also possible for a network neutrality rule to have the intent or effect of “commoditizing” broadband transmission and Internet access services by limiting the ability of broadband service providers to differentiate their service offerings from those of rival firms…

Such rules might also quash the emergence of faster delivery transports, something Internet needs more now than ever.  When Internet last-mile over Ethernet emerged a few years back, you paid a premium for it.  Nothing illegal about the premium, as it was a physically different class of service.  Same thing when DSL showed up, and so on.

But the knuckleheads at the FCC (and, Heaven help us, Congress) probably don’t know the difference between physical classes of service (which vary in speed due to the laws of physics) and arbitrary classes of service (which vary in speed due to a human decision).

So I contend that this notion of regulating network neutrality still seeks to solve a problem we don’t yet have (the “problem” is networking companies busting the content companies without actually competing against them, ie. anticompetitive behavior). That’s strike one against the Netneut idea.  Strike two is the dominion of the FCC, which does not include considerations for illicit trading, racketeering, collusion, or other methods of anti-competition. That’s the dominion of the Federal Trade Commission, not the FCC.  Strike Three. Consumers don’t care–and consumers are the citizens of this great nation. Their voices matter.

So why is Obama’s FCC trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist in an area where they’ve no business sticking their nose when the population at large could give a crap?

Hit me on Twitter if you can answer that.  @bitterted