Net neutrality: The Big O weighs in on the side of irrelevance

A friend of mine wryly observed, "I like to read the Oregonian to find out what was in the New York Times last week." Don't know if he was looking for a case in point this morning, but all he had to do was turn to the editorial page, where they've gotten around to Senator Wyden's proposal to protect net neutrality.

Their editorial is a study in the practical use of the non sequitur. Yes, they concede, Wyden's proposal is founded on "admirable principles." But, they hedge,

In other ways, however, Wyden's proposal ignores the ways in which the Internet fails to function as a democracy. For starters, less than 20 percent of the world's population can tap into the network, according to Vinton Cerf, a developer of the Internet's key data-handling protocol. While the percentage is much higher in this country, broadband access remains unavailable or unaffordable in many areas.

Further, such libertarian technologists as Doc Searls, the senior editor of Linux Journal, are concerned with the prevalence of "asymmetric" Internet access. That means that information flows much more quickly to you than it can from you, keeping the average user from equality with major online content providers.

Meanwhile, the Internet is fragmenting in significant ways as such countries as China come online. Thanks to the cooperative attitudes of some U.S. companies, users in China have access and privacy rights that are much lower than those of their counterparts in the West. In that sense, the Internet stopped being a democracy some time ago.

And these thoughts by the editors are, in their turn, admirable questions, but not ones that have anything much to do with Wyden's proposal, which centers around these provisions:

• Preventing interfering with, blocking, degrading, altering, modifying or changing traffic on the Internet;


• Prohibiting creation of a priority lane where content providers can buy quicker access to customers, while those who don’t pay the fee are left in the slow lane;


• Allowing consumers to choose which devices they use to connect to the Internet while they are on the Internet;


• Ensuring that consumers have non-discriminatory access and service;


• Having a transparent system whereby consumers, Internet content, and applications companies have access to the rates, terms, and conditions for Internet service.

And as for this blithe add-on by the editors--

At any rate, choice already exists in cyberspace. If a service provider charges more than customers want to pay, or provides inferior service, most U.S. customers can choose a different provider and a different way to connect.

--one can only say that the Oregonian's indifference to the increasing concentration of ownership in these areas is a thing to behold.