We have not discussed “net neutrality” here much. If you are a conservative, you know from conservative pundits that you are supposed to hate this. If you are a liberal, your liberal overlords have stipulated you must embrace this.

Okay, it basically goes like this. Today, you can pretty much get to any web site or internet service that you want to get to. There is no easy way to restrict you provided you have internet access that the website or service out there wants you to get to it. Sounds good, and the FCC agrees with this ancient premise: the whole point of the Web is that you should be able to get to whatever you want.

Google, Verizon, and others want to change this. They want to create a difference between accessing the web through conventional means (a computer and modem, for example) and getting web data off your smart phone. Verizon, for example, could charge you more for using a smart phone, but in return you would get faster service and some premium services not available to others.

Whoa—what’s this? Because implicit in that assumption is that non-paying customers would not be able to access these services. And that, some folks argue, is a violation of the whole net neutrality concept, as well as potentially infringing on rights to free speech. What, then, is to stop a cell phone provider from blocking content to a competitor’s services, or even censoring material it deems inappropriate?

Okay, so the FCC said that is not kosher, and moved to stop it. And they lost that decision, because (a) net neutrality is not the law, and (b) the FCC has no authority to make it so. In reponse, the FCC began to hammer out a framework that would maintain equal access, but would allow carriers to charge different rates for different flavors of services.

But no—opponents say this is crap. You are thereby creating two internets (at least): one fast one for premium dollar amounts, and a slower one for cheapskates. Today, the customer can decide how much or how fast he wants the internet to go for himself. The proposed change to this notion puts carriers—subject to the FCC—in charge preferentially over content providers—who are not beholden to the FCC. And this puts us right back where we were: a cell phone carrier can restrict content if you didn’t pay for it, and that makes conservatives hopping mad. It means that the government (unwittingly or not) gets to decide whether a private citizen can obtain services from a private service provider.

Tough crap, the FCC decided. On December 21st, we are going to this new model, like it or not! Look, the FCC reasons, we’re trying to do the right thing here. We are trying to help businesses compete against each other, and maintain an even playing field. Opponents say no, that this is restricting competition because carriers have an unfair advantage over a content provider.

So the Senate Republicans have stated that they will fight this on the floor of the Senate if they have to.

And they have to.

Because regardless of what side you take on this issue, the FCC does not have the authority to make a unilateral decision for internet control any more than you do. In fact, the internet is pretty much out of FCC control entirely: this is as absurd as the EPA saying they will make changes to the way you use the Internet.

Look, the Czar is sympathic to both sides. If you are carrier, you are providing a paid service. If you want to offer tiered services, that’s your call. If, as a result, you want to restrict people from getting premium offerings because they didn’t pony up, that’s your call. A cable company doesn’t offer 180 channels of HD services to a guy paying only for basic cable, right? And hey—if you want to restrict access so that your customers cannot download porn, violent material, or pro-drug messages, or even competitor ads that could hurt your sales, guess what? You own the service, so you damn well have a say in that, too. If the customer hates it, he can go elsewhere. You have the right to refuse service.

On the other hand, the other argument is good, too. Why do carriers get this advantage when other service providers do not? Why is it when Comcast prevented its users from using a popular file-sharing software service—because Comcast did not want to risk being sued since the software is often used to make and exchange illegal copies of media—the same FCC that loves premium content ordered them to allow the software? Okay, the Czar agrees with the previous paragraph, but you cannot create and enforce a double standard simply because carriers report to the FCC and service providers (like Comcast) do not.

This is indeed a thorny issue. But the FCC is simply wrong in appointing itself the arbiter here. It has no authority—certainly not without Congressional approval—to create law.

The solution is butt-dumblingly simple. Do nothing. Think about it: the status quo is maintained for service providers and content providers alike. On the other hand, if a carrier (or heck, anyone else) wants to provide restrictions based on the degree of the service contract, let ‘em. If you don’t want to pay Verizon $14.95 a month for “the whole internet,” go to AT&T who offers the whole thing for one price. (The Czar has chosen Verizon and AT&T as examples—don’t assume these are endorsements for or against either company!) Today, you can chat with IM for free over the Web, or you can use SMS on your cell phone for a fee. What’s the difference? You decide, not some FCC minder.

Both arguments are correct. Yet, somehow, the FCC managed to pick the wrong one. And on December 21, you might be paying for it—maybe not financially, but it would be another slash at the separation of powers.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.