I seriously didn’t mean that in a name-calling sense. Many folks on my side of the network neutrality debate are equally clueless, and for that matter, so are activists on both sides of almost any complex issue. That’s one of the reasons that insiders so often win political battles: insiders understand the system much better than the rest of us, and so they’re in a much better position to manipulate the political process to their advantage.

I have, in fact, pointed out some of the dubious arguments made by some of the louder and less-informed members of the pro-regulatory coalition. See here, here, here, here, and here, for example. There are some good arguments for network neutrality, but “cable companies will discriminate against Christian web sites,” “The Internet has always had network neutrality regulations but now Congress is trying to repeal them” aren’t among them.

“Most of the activists pushing for new government regulations don’t seem to even have a solid understanding of how the Internet works right now.”

You’re better than this. Stop name calling. Stop dropping ad homs. (If pro-neutrality arguments are generally based on incorrect assumptions about the internet, by all means say so, and then justify that claim. THAT’S a debate.) We agree too much on other issues (e.g., Section 1201). Your name calling reduces both your credibility (surely Vint Cerf understands the internet) and our ability to cooperate later.

“Most of the activists pushing for new government regulations don’t seem to even have a solid understanding of how the Internet works right now.”

You’re better than this. Stop name calling. Stop dropping ad homs. (If pro-neutrality arguments are generally based on incorrect assumptions about the internet, by all means say so, and then justify that claim. THAT’S a debate.) We agree too much on other issues (e.g., Section 1201). Your name calling reduces both your credibility (surely Vint Cerf understands the internet) and our ability to cooperate later.

Now, those changes are going to be very gradual. It might start with a requirement that all ISPs register with the FCC and pay a small fee. Once that registration is in place, maybe the telcos will probably encourage the FCC to extend the various mandates that now apply to their infrastructure�¢â?¬â?CALEA, universal service, E-911, public access channels�¢â?¬â?to everyone offering broadband access. Then maybe Congress to pass some legislation requiring all ISPs to take various efforts to battle kiddie porn, piracy, spam, viruses, etc. The FCC will start issuing regulations telling you what kind of routers you need to comply with all the various congressional mandates.

Pretty soon, the regulatory thicket will get so dense that it will be impossible to get into the Internet business unless you’ve got a full time lawyer on staff. A few years after that, success as an ISP will require you to hire several lawyers and a good telecom lobbying firm. A few years after that, the incumbents will have made the rules so complex that entering the market is effectively impossible.

Is that exactly how it will happen? Who knows. I just think it’s naive to think that neutrality regulations will be enforced exactly the way Larry Lessig envisions them.

Here’s something I wrote a couple of weeks ago laying out one possible scenario, in which the broadband incumbents lock out future competitors:

Now, those changes are going to be very gradual. It might start with a requirement that all ISPs register with the FCC and pay a small fee. Once that registration is in place, maybe the telcos will probably encourage the FCC to extend the various mandates that now apply to their infrastructureÃ?¢â?‰?CALEA, universal service, E-911, public access channelsÃ?¢â?‰?to everyone offering broadband access. Then maybe Congress to pass some legislation requiring all ISPs to take various efforts to battle kiddie porn, piracy, spam, viruses, etc. The FCC will start issuing regulations telling you what kind of routers you need to comply with all the various congressional mandates. Pretty soon, the regulatory thicket will get so dense that it will be impossible to get into the Internet business unless you’ve got a full time lawyer on staff. A few years after that, success as an ISP will require you to hire several lawyers and a good telecom lobbying firm. A few years after that, the incumbents will have made the rules so complex that entering the market is effectively impossible.

Is that exactly how it will happen? Who knows. I just think it’s naive to think that neutrality regulations will be enforced exactly the way Larry Lessig envisions them.